Civil Appeal No 931 of 1980
From the Judgment and order dated 2531980 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No 380
Aeltemesh Rein Appellant in person
143 GN Rao and CL Sahu for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD C J
The appellant Aeltemesh Rein was a candidate for election to the Lok Sabha from the Durg Parliamentary Constituency in the General Elections held in January 1980
Respondent I having been declared as a successful candidate in the aforesaid election the petitioner filed an election petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under section 81 of the Representation of the People Act 1951  The Act 
The appellant stated expressly in his election petition that the security amount of Rs 2000 was being deposited along with the petition as required by section 117 of the Act but in fact no such deposit was made
The High Court dismissed the petition for non compliance with the provisions of section 117 and hence this appeal
It is urged by the appellant who appeared in person before us that sections 86 and 117 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 are ultra vires Article 329b of the Constitution and therefore the High Court was in error in dismissing the election petition for the reason that the provisions of s117 were not complied with
We see no substance in this contention
Article 329b of the Constitution provides in so far as material that no election to either House of Parliament shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature
It is in pursuance of this provision that the Parliament provided by section 117 of the Act that at the time of presenting an election petition the petitioner shall deposit in the High Court in accordance with the rules of the High Court a sum of Rs 2000 as security for the costs of the respondent
We are unable to accept the petitioner s argument that the words in such manner which occur in Article 329b are limited in their operation to procedural and not substantive requirements
The Constitution by the aforesaid clause has conferred authority on the appropriate legislature to pass a law providing for the authority to which the election petition may be presented and the manner of providing it
The provision of law which prescribes that an election petition shall be accompanied by the payment of security amount pertains to the area covered by the manner of the making of the election petition and is therefore within the authority of the Parliament
144 The only question which survives is as to what is the consequence of non compliance with section 117 of the Act
That question has been settled by the decision of this court in Charan Lal Sahu vs Nand Kishore Bhatt and Ors1 wherein it was held that the High Court has no option but to reject an election petition which is not accompanied by the payment of security amount as provided in section 117 of the Act
Section 861 of the Act provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Sections 81 82 or 117
In that view of the matter the High Court was right in dismissing the election petition summarily
The appellant contended that he could not pay the deposit because he was bugled on way to the Court
This plea is as irrelevant as it seems untrue
Accordingly we uphold the Judgment of the High Court and dismiss this appeal
There will be no order as to costs
NKA Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was a candidate for Election to the Lok Sabha in the General Elections
Respondent 1 was declared the successful candidate
The appellant filed Election Petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act 1951
The appellant expressly stated in his Election Petition that security amount of Rs 2000 was being deposited along with the petition as required by section 117 of the Act but in fact no such deposit was made
The High Court dismissed the petition for non compliance with the provisions of section 117
On Appeal to this Court the appellant argued that sections 86 and 117 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 are ultra vires Article 329b of the Constitution and therefore the High Court was in error in dismissing the election petition for non compliance of section 117
Dismissing the appeal the Court  HELD 1 The Constitution by Article 329b has conferred authority on the appropriate legislature to pass a law providing for the authority to which the election petition may be presented and the manner of providing it
The provision of law which prescribes that an election petition shall be accompanied by the payment of security amount pertains to the area covered by the manner of the making of the election petition and is therefore within the authority of the Parliament
143 G H 2 The question as to what is the consequence of non compliance with section 117 of the Act has been settled by the decision of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu vs Nand Kishore Bhatt and Others  144 A 3 The High Court was right in dismissing the election petition summarily in view of section 861 of the Act
144 C