1 CGHC010133612022 2026:CGHC:35423 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1977 of 2022 1 - Mohammad Anis Nizami S/o Mohammad Rais Khan Aged About 29 Years R/o H.No.- C/17/1498, Vrindavan Complex Road, Maudhapara, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh State Election Commission, Through- Election Commissioner, Election Office, North Block, Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Divisional Commissioner, Division, Raipur, D.K.S. Bhawan Parisar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector And District Election Officer, ( Regional Election), Collectorate Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Deputy Director, Government Regional Press Office, Behind Indravati Bhawan, Amenities Block, Nawa Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Near Mahila Police Thana, Gandhi Udhan, Raipur, District- Raipur,chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mohammad Waquar Rizvi, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Abhyudhay Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the petitioner regarding the election contested by him in 2019-2020. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition preferred by the petitioner and set aside the impugned order dated 08.03.2022 passed by respondent no.-2 and further restrained the respondent concerned from publication of the above impugned order in the Chhattisgarh Gazette. 10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner along with cost of the petition, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was one of the candidates who contested the election for the post of Councillor (Ward Parshad) from Ward No. 36, Raipur, in the General Election of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, held in December 2019–January 2020, the results whereof were declared on 24.12.2019. It is alleged that the petitioner failed to submit the account of election expenses within the prescribed period, on the 3 basis of which respondent No. 2 issued a show-cause notice dated 13.07.2020 under Sections 14-A and 14-B of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 08.03.2022, disqualifying the petitioner and debarring him from contesting any election to the Municipal Corporation for a period of five years under Section 14-C(b) of the Act. The petitioner submits that the impugned order is erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and law, as he had in fact submitted the account of election expenses on 28.01.2020, with a delay of only eight days, along with an application explaining the reasons for such delay. A copy of the receipt, application and statement of election expenses has been filed as Annexure P-3. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 failed to consider the aforesaid material and erroneously proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner had not submitted the account at all. The petitioner also submits that he never received the alleged show- cause notice and, therefore, was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to explain the circumstances before the impugned order was passed. The order, having been passed without affording an effective opportunity of hearing and without considering the petitioner's subsequent submission of the election expenditure account, is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that a mere delay of eight days, in the absence of any wilful or deliberate violation, could not have resulted in the extreme consequence of disqualification for five 4 years. The impugned order is, therefore, arbitrary, disproportionate, contrary to law and liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the present writ petition, though filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is based on misleading, frivolous and incorrect averments and does not disclose any valid ground warranting interference by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner had contested the election for the post of Councillor from Ward No. 36, Raipur, as an independent candidate and was under a statutory obligation to submit the account of election expenses before the competent authority within the prescribed period of 30 days from the declaration of the election results. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the said statutory requirement. It is further submitted that a show-cause notice dated 13.07.2020 was duly issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain the non-submission of the election expenditure account, but the petitioner failed to submit any reply to the said notice. Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.03.2022 was rightly passed in accordance with law. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the petition is devoid of merit and discloses no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is further submitted that the respondents have adequately dealt with the principal contentions raised by the petitioner and, therefore, reserve their liberty to file a detailed para-wise reply, if so directed by this Court or if the circumstances so warrant. 5 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 submits that the said respondent has been unnecessarily impleaded in the present writ petition, as no specific allegation, grievance or relief has been sought against him. It is submitted that no inaction or illegality on the part of respondent No. 6 has been alleged or demonstrated by the petitioner. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition insofar as respondent No. 6 is concerned. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the election in question, in respect of which the petitioner was disqualified/debarred for a period of five years on account of non- submission of the requisite documents relating to election expenses, has already become a matter of the past, and the said period of disqualification has since expired. In view of the expiry of the prescribed period of disqualification, no effective or fruitful adjudication of the challenge raised in the present petition would now survive. Accordingly, the petitioner is no longer subject to the aforesaid disqualification and would be at liberty to contest any election in future, subject to his eligibility under the applicable law and the rules governing such election. 6. With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat