Kulpreet vs Jamal And Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner contested the election of Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Mubarikpur and Alipur held on 26th September, 2022, wherein, the petitioner won the election and elected as Gram Pradhan.

The respondent no.1 filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner on the post of Pradhan under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Settlement of Election Dispute) Rules 1994 ‘hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1994’’ before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Laksar, district Haridwar which was registered as Election Petition No.1 of 2022 Jamal versus Usmana and others. The petitioner filed his written statement in the election petition on 25.11.2022. Before the issues could be framed for the disposal of the election petition, an application was moved by the petitioner purportedly under the provisions of Rule 4(1)(vi) of the Rules of 1994 for rejection of the election petition on the ground that the election petition was not accompanied by treasury challan as required under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994. The learned Sub Divisional Officer by reason of the judgement and order dated 27.10.2023 (annexure 6 to this petition) rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the amount required under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of Rules of 1994 was deposited and the receipt thereof is annexed in the file. Further, the learned SDO was of the opinion that on the mere technicalities, a person cannot be deprived of justice. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 27.10.2023, moved a civil revision before the Third Additional District Judge Haridwar which was registered as Civil Revision No.72 of 2023, Kulpreet v. Jamal and others, which too met the same fate and the revision was accordingly dismissed.

It is feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid two judgements and orders passed by the learned SDO and learned Revisional Court, the petitioner is before this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It is submitted by Mr. Arvind Vashisht, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the requirement of deposit of Rs.50 and a challan to be annexed with the election petition was a condition precedent to file the election petition before the S.D.O., and without doing that, the election petition cannot be entertained, and accordingly the same should have been rejected at the threshold by the S.D.O. due to non-compliance of the aforesaid mandatory provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of Rules of 1994. It is also submitted by him that although, Rs.50/- was deposited by the respondent no.1- the election petitioner but the same was not deposited in the account as mentioned in the rules i.e. Personal Ledger Account of Gram Panchayat concerned as security. It is further submitted by him that the petition has been entertained without the challan deposited by the respondent no.1-election petitioner, rather the said amount of Rs.50/-was deposited through challan only after the application moved by the petitioner purportedly under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of Rules of 1994, and which can be taken as an application under Order 17 Rule 11 of the plaint i.e. Election Petition and that too under the account head ‘0515-Other Rural Development Programmes’ and therefore, it is the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that sufficient compliance has not been made.

Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1-the election petitioner submitted that the Challan of Rs.50 was deposited by the respondent no.1 -election petitioner on 27.02.2023 which is reflected from the E-challan receipt annexed with the writ petition by the writ petitioner while the application under Rule 4(1)(vi) was filed on 22.5.2023. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent no.1-election petitioner that the impugned judgement and orders in the writ petition are well reasoned orders and the application has been rejected on two grounds only, that (1) the amount has already been deposited and (2) on mere technicalities, a person cannot be devoid of his rights.

Having heard the rival contention of the parties and having gone through the papers annexed with petition along with the provisions of Rule of 1994, this Court is of the opinion that if we take the deficiency of not depositing the E-challan of Rs.50 for filing the election petition, then, in view of the provisions of Order 7 sub-rule 1(c) Rule 11 CPC, the deficiency can only be directed to be made good at any time. Since the election petitioner-respondent no.1 has already deposited the challan of Rs.50, though in a different head, he cannot be blamed for that, as on his part, the sufficient compliance of the Rule has been made. Secondly it is a kind of technicality for which no one can be made to suffer.

In such view of the matter I do not find any legal infirmity in the judgements and orders impugned in the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. However since the same contention has been raised by the petitioner/the winning Pradhan in his written statement, the learned S.D.O. shall frame an issue on this point which shall be accordingly decided, without being influenced by any observation(s) made by this Court while deciding the present petition.