LAXMIBAI Vs. COLLECTOR
LAWS(SC)-2020-2-56
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 14,2020

LAXMIBAI Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

N P PONNUSWAMI THE UNION OF INDIA AND STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT VS. RETURNING OFFICER NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY NAMAKKAL SALEM DIST :RETURNING OFFICER NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY NAMAKKAL SALEM DIST [REFERRED TO]
SANGRAN SINGH VS. ELECTION TRIBUNI KOTAH [REFERRED TO]
D VENKATA REDDY VS. R SULTAN [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI BASU VS. DEBI GHOSAL [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT THAKUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S T MUTHLJSAMI VS. K NATARAJAN [REFERRED TO]
MOHANLAL TRIPATHI VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE RAI BAREILLY [REFERRED TO]
C SUBRAHMANYAM VS. K RAMANJANEYULLU [REFERRED TO]
RAM BETI VS. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ ADHIKARI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BALDEV SINGH [REFERRED TO]
TARLOCHAN DEV SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
SANJANA M WIG VS. HINDUSTAN PETRO CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
HARNEK SINGH VS. CHARNJIT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. A K PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI VS. GULABHIA M LAD [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE NEW DELHI VS. HARI CHAND SHRI GOPAL [REFERRED TO]
RAVI YASHWANT BHOIR VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RAIGAD [REFERRED TO]
MALAM SINGH VS. COLLECTOR SEHORE M P [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KVS VS. J.HUSSAIN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. KAMAL PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KRISHNA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD. VS. K. HANUMANTHA RAO AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
SHRI. GOKUL CHANDANMAL SANGVI VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

M.V.L. NARAYANARAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2022-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL MEGHABEN AMITKUMAR VS. NIRUBEN JAYDEEPBHAI KHANT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-1-705] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SINHA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL VERMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-84] [REFERRED TO]
ANSHIKA SINGH VS. M.P. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
GAZALA BI SADDAM SHAH VS. THE COLLECTOR, BULDHANA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
SHEIKH HAFIZ VS. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-51] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL HEMU MAHAJAN VS. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-54] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA UPADHYAY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-68] [REFERRED TO]
MOTILAL SAKET VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-83] [REFERRED TO]
DILEEP VS. M.P. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(MPH)-2022-6-84] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH CHANDRA TIWARI VS. M.P. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-52] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ RATHORE VS. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION [LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
DEBASISH MAZUMDER VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILENDRA TIWARI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA AND ORS. VS. FOUZIYA IMTIAZ SHAIKH AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-91] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

HEMANT GUPTA,J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 10 th December, 2018 passed by the learned Single Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant against an order of disqualification under Section 14B of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, for short, '1959 Act' on account of non-submission of election expenses within the period prescribed.
(3.)The election of Gram Panchayat, Mugat, Taluk Mudkhed, District Nanded were held on 1st November, 2015. The results were declared on 4th November, 2015. The appellant was elected as a Member of Village Panchayat. The appellant was required to furnish election expenses within 30 days in the manner prescribed by the State Election Commission in terms of Section 14B of the 1959 Act. The appellant submitted expenses with delay of 15 days. The appellant was served with a show cause notice on 3 rd March, 2016 as to why she should not be disqualified on account of failure to submit the election expenses. The appellant submitted her explanation that due to ill-health there was a delay of 15 days in furnishing of details of expenses and that delay may be condoned.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.