Isher Singh vs Simranjit Singh Mann and others

The challenge here to the election of Shri Simranjit Mann to the Lok Sabha from the Tarn Taran Parliamentary Constituency in the elections held in November, 1989, stands thwarted at the very threshold by virtue of the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit security for costs as required by Section 117 thereof.

There is no doubt an application by the petitioner seeking exemption from depositing Rs. 2,000/- as security for costs, but a reference to the provisions of the Act would show that no power or authority is conferred upon the Court to either absolve the petitioner from making the security deposit or even to reduce the amount required to be deposited. In dealing with this matter, it would be pertinent to advert to Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Nandkishore Bhatt and Others, , where, it was observed "Any discretion to condone the delay in presentation of the petitioner or to absolve the petitioner from payment of security for costs can only be provided under the statute governing election disputes. If no discretion is conferred in respect of any of these matters, none can be exercised under any general law or any principle of equity." It was accordingly held that non-deposit of the security along with Election petition as required u/s 117 of the Act, leaves no option to the Court but to reject it. This was later followed by the Supreme Court in Aeltemesh Rein Vs. Chandulal Chandrakar and Others, .

Such thus being the settled position in law, this petition is hereby dismissed for nonpayment of security within the period prescribed in law.

Petition dismissed.