THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.23778 of 2008 Dated 02nd August, 2011 Between: Smt.Siyadri Rajeswari …Petitioner And Polipalli Jyothi and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G.Rama Krishna For Sri V.Hari Haran Counsel for respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Sri N.Ranga Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 13.06.2008, in E.O.P.No.876 of 2007, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder while allowing I.A.No.160 of 2008 filed by respondent No.1, I.A.No.475 of 2008 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. I have heard Sri G.Rama Krishna, learned counsel, representing Sri V.Hari Haran, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5. No one appeared for respondent No.1. The petitioner unsuccessfully contested the election for Ward Member of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. Respondent No.1 was elected as the Member in the said election. Challenging her election, the petitioner filed E.O.P.No.876 of 2007 in the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Along with the election petition, the petitioner deposited Rs.100/- as against the sum Rs.1,000/- as security deposit as envisaged under Rule 114 of the A.P.Municipal Corporations (Conduct of Election of Members) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules’). Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.160 of 2008 for dismissing the election petition on the ground of non-compliance with Rule 114 of the Rules. The petitioner filed I.A.No.475 of 2008 to permit her to pay the balance of Rs.900/-. The learned District Judge, after hearing both these applications, allowed I.A.No.160 of 2008 filed by respondent No.1 and dismissed I.A.No.475 of 2008. As a result of allowing I.A.No.160 of 2008, the learned District Judge dismissed the election petition itself. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned District Judge was not justified in placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court arising under the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short ‘the 1951 Act’) ignoring the fact that Rule 100 of the Rules makes the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of the suits to the election petitions arising under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the 1955 Act’) and the Rules. A perusal of the order of the learned District Judge shows that reliance was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt and others[1] and Aeltemesh Rein v. Chandulal Chandrakar and others[2] in concluding that where the petitioner makes a short deposit against the deposit prescribed under the 1951 Act, there is no discretion vested in the Election Tribunal other than dismissing the election petition. The learned District Judge observed that the provisions of both the 1951 Act and the 1955 Act are in pari materia and that therefore, the ratio laid down in the said judgments will equally apply to the election petitions filed under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. At the hearing, though the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 100 of the Rules as noted above, he has not disputed that an analogous provision is contained in Section 117 of the 1951 Act. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgments does not operate in respect of the election petitions arising under the Act and the Rules. When the provisions of two Acts are in pari materia with each other, the judgments rendered under one Act will equally apply to the proceedings governed by the other Act. In this view of the matter, as the Apex Court has construed the provision prescribing deposit of money as mandatory and the petitioner having admittedly failed to comply with the mandatory provision by making a short deposit, the Election O.P., was liable to be dismissed and was accordingly rightly dismissed by the learned District Judge. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 02nd August, 2011 VGB [1] AIR 1973 SC 2464 [2] AIR 1981 SC 1199