Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1119 - SC - Indian LawsJurisdiction Under Section 10A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 - whether no person can by way of a complaint approach the Election Commission? - right conferred on any person to seek for inspection of the accounts - disqualification the Appellant for a period of three years - Held that:- Reading Section 10A along with Rules 87 to 90, in particular, the right conferred on any person to seek for inspection of the accounts submitted, it will have to be held that such a right is not conferred merely to look into the details of the account. If based on the inspection, made by a person Under Rule 88 and the attested copies of such accounts disclose that the candidate concerned committed a very serious illegality in the matter of submission of the account of election expenses, it must be stated that such a person will have every right to bring it to the notice of the Election Commission for taking appropriate legal recourse available to that person under the Act. It may be stated that once any such misfeasance in the submission of the account of the election expenses is brought to the notice of the Election Commission, thereafter it would be for the Election Commission to set the process in motion for deciding the issue as contemplated in Section 10A of the Act. It cannot be said that no person can by way of a complaint approach the Election Commission. If someone is able to assert such misuse of funds in the process of election by a candidate by making an inspection Under Rule 88 and if the concerned individual finds out that such misuse of funds had taken place, which was not disclosed in the statement of account of election expenses, he will have every right to bring it to the notice of the Election Commission and the very purport of providing such a right Under Rule 87 and 88 when read along with Section 10A makes it clear that he would have every locus to prefer a complaint. Also in the course of an enquiry made Under Section 10A, the Election Commission can call upon the concerned individual to substantiate the complaint with relevant materials to enable the Election Commission to pass appropriate orders of disqualification under the said Section. Therefore, the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that the Complainants have no locus cannot be accepted. The Election Commission of India considered the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, the reply submitted by the Petitioner on 22nd July, 2011 as well as the supplementary reply dated 4th April, 2011 and has rightly exercised its jurisdiction Under Section 10A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 declaring the Petitioner disqualified for three years. All the conditions, for exercise of power Under Section 10A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 were fully satisfied and we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Election Commission of India dated 20th October, 2011 which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. Having perused the above order of the Division Bench, wherein the details with regard to the various allegations relating to the violation in the lodging of the election expenses; in such details, in the absence of glaring illegality or irregularity pointed out before us, we have no reason to interfere with those finding of facts arrived at by the Election Commission, which was also confirmed by the Division Bench after a thorough examination. Therefore, on merits as well, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Election Commission disqualifying the Appellant for a period of three years. The appeals, therefore, stand dismissed.
|