1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3758/05 (Kailash v/s. Harun & Ors.) Date of Judgment :: 03.11.20008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. Rajneesh Gupta for the petitioner. Mrs. Parinitoo Jain, Additional GA, for the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.05.2005 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur – cum – Election Tribunal, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 7 Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, “CPC”). The brief facts of the case are that non-petitioner No.1, Harun, had filed an election petition against the petitioner challenging the petitioner's election to the post of Sarpanch of village Panchayat Samiti Dudawal, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur. The election petition was filed on 25th February, 2005. However, while filing the said election petition, the respondent No.1 did not submit any proof of the fact that he had deposited Rs.500/- by way of security 2 amount as required by Rule 81 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short, “the Rules of 1994”). Since petitioner No.1 did not deposit the said required amount, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying that the election petition should be dismissed for non-compliance of mandatory provisions contained in Rule 81(2) of the Rules of 1994. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide order dated 05.05.2005, the learned Judge dismissed the said application. Hence, this writ petition before this Court. Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that Rule 81 of the Rules of 1994 are pari materia with Rule 79 of the Rajasthan Panchayat & Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 (for short, “the Rules of 1960”). In case of Gulab Singh V/s. The Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhadra & ors. [1981 WLN (UC) 78], this Court had clearly held that provisions of Rule 79 of Rules of 1960 are mandatory in nature. In case, a person while filing an election petition does not deposit the security amount, it cannot be said that the claim petition is validly filed. Therefore, any subsequent proceeding would be non- est in the eyes of law. The learned counsel has further 3 argued that according to the impugned order itself, while the election petition was filed on 25th February, 2005, admittedly Rs.500/- by way of security amount was not deposited till 28th February, 2005. Therefore, the mandatory provisions of Rule 1994 was not followed. Hence, the election petition should have been dismissed on the ground that the election petition has not been validly instituted. On the other hand, Mrs. Parinitoo Jain, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has contended that non-depositing of Rs.500/- is at best an irregularity which can be cured subsequently. In fact, respondent No.1 had curred the defect by depositing Rs.500/- on 28th February, 2005. Thus, the learned Court validly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, have perused the impugned order as well as the case law cited at the Bar. In case of Gulab Singh (supra), this Court had clearly held that Rule 79 of the Rule of 1960 is mandatory in nature. Admittedly, Rule 79 of the Rules of 1960 and Rule 4 81 of the Rules of 1994 are pari materia with each other. Therefore, the interpretation of the rules by this Court with regard to Rule 79 would ipso facto apply to the interpretation of Rule 81 of the Rules of 1994. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the requirement of Rule 81 is equally mandatory in nature. Since, the security amount of Rs.500/- was not deposited along with election petition, the said petition was not validly instituted. Therefore, the election petition is non-est in the eyes of law. Hence, the learned Judge was unjustified in dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. In fact, the election petition has been dismissed on the ground of non- compliance of Rule 81(2) of the Rules of 1994. In the result, this petition is allowed and the order dated 05.05.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside and the election petition of respondent No.1 is declared to be non- est in the eyes of law. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.S.CHAUHAN]J A.Asopa/