HC junks plea challenging councillor's disqualification

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by a petitioner challenging her disqualification by the State Election Commission (SEC) for failing to submit the election expenses within the prescribed time frame.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by Khamar Nizami who has moved the court seeking directions to set aside the single bench order dismissing her petition.

The petitioner had earlier moved the court seeking directions to quash the SEC's order disqualifying her membership from the post of councillor of Channapatna City Municipal Council and it was dismissed by the court in 2015.

In the municipal council election held in 2013, the petitioner was elected as a councillor from ward 23, Fausar Road under the Channapatna City Municipal Council. Thereafter by a notice dated 10 September, 2013 issued by the SEC, the petitioner was called to furnish the account of election expenses with the returning officer within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of notice in accordance with Section B of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. However, the petitioner did not submit the election expenses within the stipulated period and submitted the same in her reply dated March 3, 2014.

As per Section 16C of the Act, a person can be disqualified only if the person is unable to show good reason or justification for her/his failure to submit the election expenses within the stipulated period mentioned in the notice.

The petitioner submitted that her mother was not well and she was also not well due to which she could not submit the expenses with the time frame.

As per Section 16C of the Act , if the SEC is satisfied that a person has failed to lodge election expenses with the time and manner required by the Act and has no good justification for the non submission, then SEC shall by order declare him or her to be disqualified for a period of three years from the date of order.

The court had also earlier observed in its order that the justification given by the petitioner are mere excuses and cannot be termed as a valid justification for her failure.

The court dismissed the petition.