Yashwant Singh Yadav vs Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer and Another

S.R. Singh, J.—Petitioner was elected as Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Taria, Vikas Khanol, Chandauli, District Varanasi. The IInd Respondent, who was also in the reckoning in the election of Pradhan, canvassed the legality of Petitioner''s election by means of election petition u/s 12C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (In short the ''Act''). On receipt of notice of the election petition, the Petitioner filed a written statement, inter alia, on the ground that the election petition was not maintainable in that it was not accompanied by a Treasury challan showing that the amount of Rs. 50 had been deposited in the Personal Ledger Account of the Gram Panchayat concerned as security. The Petitioner posited the issue regarding maintainability of the application under Sub-section (1) of Section 12C of the Act, to be decided as a preliminary issue. The Prescribed Authority by means of the impugned order dated 27.3.97 held that initially when the election petition was filed, a sum of Rs. 5 was deposited towards security, but later on, the election Petitioner deposited Rs. 50 towards security and, therefore, it was considered not feasible to dismiss the election petition.

Sri Sankatha Rai, appearing for the Petitioner, canvassed that the deposit of Rs. 5 vide treasury challan (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) was not in the Personal Ledger Account of the concerned Gram Panchayat, rather, it was in the Personal Account No. 8443 of the District Gaon Fund and the subsequent Treasury Challan (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) also does not bespeak that the deposit of Rs. 50 was made in the Personal Ledger Account of the Gram Panchayat. Rather, it would appear, it was made in Gaon Fund Account No. 8443. It is urged by the learned Counsel that in view of the first proviso to Rule 3(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Dispute) Rules, 1994 (In short the ''Rules''), the application u/s 12 (C)(1) of the Act was not liable to be ''entertained'' in the absence of a treasury challan showing that the amount of Rs. 50 had been deposited in the Personal Ledger Account of the Gram Panchayat concerned as security. The learned Counsel urged that in view of Clause (vi) of Rule 4 of the Rules, the application merits to be dismissed. The learned Counsel placed credence upon a decision of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Tiwari v. Vth Addl District Judge, Basti and Ors. 1986 RJ 106. Sri Wajahat Hussain appearing for the Respondent, repudiated the submissions made by Sri Sankatha Rai and urged that the Treasury Challan (Annexures 4 and 5) reflects unmistakably that the amount was deposited towards security account in relation to the election petition relating to the office of Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned. The learned Counsel further urged that the Account Number 8443 in the treasury challan was mentioned by the officials of the office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Varanasi and no blame can attach to the election Petitioner if the account number mentioned in the treasury challan is not the Personal Ledger Account of the concerned Gram Panchayat. The learned Counsel also urged that even if Gaon Fund Account No. 8443 is not the Personal Ledger Account of the concerned Gram Panchayat, the election petition would not be liable to be dismissed in that the provisions contained in Clause (vi) of Rule 4 (1) of the Rules, partake of the nature of being directory and not mandatory.

Having devoted my thoughtful considerations to the submissions advanced at the Bar, I am of the firm view that an election petition u/s 12C (1) of the Act, which is unattended by Treasury Challan as required under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 is not liable to be dismissed at the threshold of the institution of the election petition in that what is comprehended by proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules, is that no such application shall be "entertained" unless it is accompanied by Treasury Challan to show that the amount of Rs, 50 has been deposited in the Personal Ledger Account of the Gram Panchayat concerned as security. The word ''entertained'' has not been used in the literal sense of ''presented'',''moved'', or ''filed''. Rather, it carries connotation of consideration on merit. It necessarily implies that if the application u/s 12C (1) is not accompanied with the treasury challan showing that the security amount has been deposited in the Personal Ledger Account of the Gram Panchayat concerned, the applicant may be given an opportunity to deposit the amount and in case the applicant still falls to do so. the application may be rejected under Clause (vi) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Rules.

In Dhoom Chand v. Chaman Lal AIR 1962 All, a Division Bench of this Court was considering the meaning of the word ''entertain'' occurring in the proviso to Order XXI, Rule 90 of the CPC The Division Bench held as under:

The dictionary meaning of the word ''entertain'' is to deal with; to admit to consideration. In its application to Clause (a), the word bears the meaning of admitting to consideration. That clause enjoins the court to consider the application on any ground which could have been taken on or before drawing up the sale proclamation. In its application to Clause (b) the word would bear the same sense. Accordingly, while the court cannot refuse to take an application which is not backed by deposit of security, it cannot judicially consider it. It is expected that the Court would ordinarily give an opportunity to the applicant to comply with Clause (b) and would reject the application if the Clause (b) were still not complied with.

Relying upon the said decision, another Division Bench of this Court in Kundan Lal Vs. Jagan Nath Sharma, , has held that the expression ''entertain'' occurring in Order XXI, Rule 90, CPC does not mean the same thing as the filing of the application or admission of the application by the Court and that a Court hearing an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 can only be said to entertain the application when it is actually disposing of the application on merits and the mere filing of the application by the judgment-debtor would not be its entertainment by Court. The view aforesaid has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Punnu Sahu (Dead) through Legal representatives, , wherein it has been held that expression entertain'' in proviso to clause (b) of Order XXI, Rule 90 (as amended by Allahabad High Court) means to "adjudicate upon" or "proceed to consider on merits" and not "initiation of proceeding". The same meaning has been given to the word ''entertain'' occurring in different Acts which came up for consideration in Mahendra Pal Singh v. IInd Addl. District Judge 1993 (1) ARC 210 and Lakshmi Rattan Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commr. Sales Tax, Kanpur and Another, .

Rule 24 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules which has since been omitted by Rule 6 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994, came up for consideration in Shamsher Singh v. VIIth Addl. District Judge, Varanasi and Ors. 1991 RD 439. It has been held therein that in case the deposit of security amount is made before expiration of the period of limitation, prescribed for filing election petition, it would amount to substantial compliance of the related provisions. Accordingly, the court found no force in the arguments that the election petition would be defective merely because, it was not accompanied with a treasury challan testifying to the deposit of Rs. 5 towards security.

In M. Karunanidhi Vs. Dr. H.V. Hande and Others, , the Supreme Court was considering the scope and ambit of Sub-section (1) of Section 117 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which provides that at the time of presentation of election petition, the Petitioner shall deposit in the High Court a sum of Rs. 2,000 as security for the cost of the petition and that such deposit shall be made in the High Court according to the Rules of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the requirement regarding making of security deposit of Rs. 2,000 in the High Court is mandatory and non-compliance of which entails dismissal in limine of the election petition under Sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 but the requirement of its deposit in the High Court in accordance with the Rules of the High Court was held to be directory. In that case, the deposit of security was made with the Reserve Bank to the credit of the Registrar, High Court, Madras. The argument was that according to the rules, the security amount ought to have been deposited in cash with the Registrar. The Court repelled the contention and held that the deposit in the Reserve Bank to the credit of the Registrar. High Court, Madras was substantial compliance of the IInd part of Sub-section (1) of Section 117 of the Representation of People Act.

In the instant case, the treasury challans (Annexures 4 and 5) clearly denote that the amount was deposited towards security of the election petition and it is stated in Para 25 of the election petition that the Personal Ledger Account of the Gram Panchayat concerned had not been opened unto that date. That being the position, the decision in Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (supra) does not help the Petitioner for in that case also it was held that in such eventuality, substantial compliance of the Rule would save the petition from being dismissed. In my opinion, the security deposit of Rs. 50 in the Gaon Fund Account No. 8443 towards security amount for the purposes of election petition would be understood to be a deposit in the Personal Ledger Account of the Gram Panchayat concerned in that there is nothing to indicate that Account No. 8443 mentioned in the Treasury Challan is not the Personal Ledger Account of the Gram Panchayat concerned. Mere fact that the expression ''Personal Ledger Account'' is not prefixed to figure'' 8443 in the treasury challans, would not be fatal and would not lead to non-compliance of the requirement of Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules aforestated particularly because the purpose of deposit is unambiguously mentioned therein. The view taken by the Prescribed Authority does not wear the taint of any infirmity and hence, the petition being shown of merit is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.