Mangilal vs S. D. O. Chachoda

T. S. Doabia, J.

The election petition preferred by Mangilal has been dismissed on the ground that requirement of Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Election Petitions, Corrupt Parties and Disqualification for Membership Rules, 1991 had not been complied with. This rule deals with deposit of security. It reads as under -

Deposit of Security - At the time of presentation of an election petition the petitioner shall deposit with the prescribed authority a sum of rupees two hundred and fifty as security for cost of petition. Where election or co-option of more than one candidate is called in question, separate deposit of an equivalent amount shall be required in respect of the such returned candidate.''

It may further be seen that as per Rule 8, if there is failure to comply Rule 7, the election petition has necessarily to be dismissed summarily. Rule 8 reads as under :-

Procedure on receiving petition - If the provisions of rule 3 or rule 4 or rule 7 have not been complied with, the prescribed authority shall dismiss the petition :

Provided that the petition shall not be dismissed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

In this case, the deposit of Rs. 50/- was made. Under the Rules of 1991 referred to above the amount required to be deposited is Rs. 250/-. As there was failure to deposit the amount of Rs. 250/- the election petition was dismissed.

Learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, states that the non-deposit of the security amount of Rs. 250/- was on account of the fact that the decision was taken by the Government on 27th May. 1994 by which it was said that election petitions would be entertained in accordance with rules made under the M. P. Panchayat Act of 1902. This decision was, however, later on reviewed and on 23rd of June 1994, the decision taken was that the election petitions would be trial under the rules of 1991. There is no dispute that the election petition was Bled after 23rd of June. 1994. Merely, because the petitioner was not aware of the decision taken by the Government on 23rd of June. 1994. it cannot be made a ground for not making the rule 8 operative. The right to take part in the process of election is a statutory right and challenge the election has also to be made as per rules. The Government had taken a decision before this election petition was filed.

(4) As per the learned counsel for the petitioner this election petition was filed in the month of July, 1994. Apart from this u/s 130. second proviso all rules which were enforced under the Repealed Act were to remain in force. Section 130, 2nd proviso reads as under :-

Provided further that, subject to the proceeding proviso anything done or any action taken (including any appointment, or delegation made, notification, notice, order, instruction or direction issued, rule, regulation, beyelaws. form, or scheme framed, certificate obtained, permit or licence granted, registration affected, tax imposed or fee or rate levied), under the repealed Act shall, inso far as it is in force immediately before the coming into force of this Act and is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act and shall continue to be inforce accordingly, unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under this Act.

The requirement to deposit security is mandatory. In Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Nandkishore Bhatt and Others, . It was said :-

We are clearly of the view that the non - deposit of the security along with the election petition as required u/s 117 of the Act leaves no option to the Court but to reject it.

See also, K. Kamaraja Nadar Vs. Kunju Thevar and Others, .

4 B - Thus, even if some administrative decision was taken by the Government on 27th of May, 1994 that cannot be of any consequence because that would be against the mandate of Section 130 noticed above.

Thus the election petition was without deposit of proper security deposit. The deposit was required, to be made as per Rule 7. This has not been done. This election petition was rightly dismissed under Rule 8.

This petition is without merit and the same is dismissed.