Case: Sitaram Vs. Radhey Shyam Vishnav &amp; Others

Raj Act, 1994 and the issue arose with regard to the interpretation of the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 (for short, "the 1994 Rules"). Rule 81(2) of the 1994 Rules provides that no petition shall be deemed to have been presented under the election rules unless the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 50/- along with the petition by way of security deposit for the costs of the opposite party. In the said case, the election petition was filed on 28.02.2015 but costs were not deposited along with the petition and the same were deposited on 12.03.2015. It was contended before the learned single Judge that the election petitioner had submitted the challan/tender for the deposit on 28.02.2015 itself but the Election Tribunal had not passed any order for depositing the costs with the treasury and, therefore, the same could not have been deposited on that day and the deposit was made after the order was passed. The learned single Judge took note of Rule 85 of the Election Rules which provides that the procedure provided in the CPC with regard to suits is made applicable in so far as can be made applicable and came to hold that if the deposit exceeds Rs. 25/-, the same can only be deposited in the treasury if an order is passed by the Court or by the Munsarim or the Reader of the Court concerned, as the case may be.35. In this regard, Mr. Singh has placed reliance on an earlier decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Gulab Singh v. The Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class and others, In the said case, the learned single Judge was dealing with the security deposit as provided under Rule 79(2) & (3) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960. In the said case, the deposit was made subsequently. It was contended that the same was fatal to the case as the provision is mandatory. Rule 79(2) of the said Rules read as follows:-"79(2) No petition shall be deemed to have been presented under these rules unless the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 50/- along with the petition by way of security for the costs of the opposite party."36. The learned single Judge placed reliance on Charan Lal Sahu (II) (supra) and came to hold that Rule 79(2) in relation to the deposit of the security along with the petition is mandatory and since on facts it is not in dispute that on 21st February, 1978 when the election petition was filed, it was not presented along with a deposit of L50/- as required for the costs of the opposite party, the legal and logical consequences would be that the election petition could not be deemed to have been presented under the Rules as per the mandate of Rule 79(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules,1960. Being of this view, the learned single Judge opined that there was no valid election petition before the Election Tribunal.37. The discussion hereinabove can be categorized into three compartments. First, the deposit is mandatory and the mode of deposit is directory; second, the non-deposit will entail dismissal and irregular deposit is curable and third, in other areas like verification, signature of parties, service of copy, etc., the principle of substantial compliance or the doctrine of curability will apply. In the case at hand, Rule 3(5)(d) commands that the election petition shall be accompanied by the treasury challan. The word used in the Rule is `accompanied and the term `accompany means to co-exist or go along. There cannot be a separation or segregation. The election petition has to be accompanied by the treasury challan and with the treasury challan, as has been understood by this Court, there has to be a deposit in the treasury. The 2012 Rules, when understood appropriately, also convey that there has to be deposit in the treasury. Once the election petition is presented without the treasury challan, the decisions of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu (I) (supra) and Aeltemesh Rein (supra) pertaining to non-deposit will have full applicability. The principle stated in M. Karunanidhi (supra), K. Kamaraja Nadar (supra), Chandrika Prasad Tripathi (supra) and other decisions will not get attracted. The interpretation placed on the 1986 Rules by the learned single Judge in Ashok Kumar (supra) cannot be treated to lay down the correct law. We arrive at the said conclusion as we do not find that there is really any Rule which prescribes filing of treasury challan before the Election Tribunal in election petition after seeking permission at the time of presenting an election petition. Permission, if any, may be sought earlier. Such was the case in Bajrang Lal v. Kanhaiya Lal and others, where the election petition was submitted on 31.8.2005 and an application was submitted before the court below on 30.8.2005 under Section 53 of the Act of 1959 with the signature of the advocate and an order was passed by the court on the same application itself on 30.8.2005 allowing the advocate to deposit the security amount under Section 53 of the Act of 1959 for election petition. The election petition was submitted on 31.8.2005. In such a fact situation, the High Court found that there was compliance with the provision.38. Mr. Jain would submit that this is not an incurable defect as the deposit has been made within the period of limitation. The said submission leaves us unimpressed inasmuch as Rule 7 leaves no option to the Judge but to dismiss the petition. Thus, regard being had to the language employed in both the Rules, we are obligated to hold that the deposit of treasury challan which means deposit of the requisite amount in treasury at the time of presentation of the election petition is mandatory. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that no valid election petition was presented. In such a situation, the learned Additional District Judge was bound in law to reject the election petition.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Mr. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, has advanced the contention with regard to substantialcompliance. To bolster the said submission, immense inspiration has been drawn from aBench decision in Chandrika Prasad Tripathi v. Shiv Prasad Chanpuria and others,. On a perusal of the aforesaid dictum, we are inclined to state that the aforesaid decision has to be distinguished on the principle laid down by this Court in Charan Lal Sahu (I) (supra).The discussion hereinabove can be categorized into three compartments. First, the deposit is mandatory and the mode of deposit is directory; second, thewill entail dismissal and irregular deposit is curable and third, in other areas like verification, signature of parties, service of copy, etc., the principle of substantial compliance or the doctrine of curability will apply. In the case at hand, Rule 3(5)(d) commands that the election petition shall be accompanied by the treasury challan. The word used in the Rule is `accompanied and the term `accompany means toor go along. There cannot be a separation or segregation. The election petition has to be accompanied by the treasury challan and with the treasury challan, as has been understood by this Court, there has to be a deposit in the treasury. The 2012 Rules, when understood appropriately, also convey that there has to be deposit in the treasury. Once the election petition is presented without the treasury challan, the decisions of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu (I) (supra) and Aeltemesh Rein (supra) pertaining towill have full applicability. The principle stated in M. Karunanidhi (supra), K. Kamaraja Nadar (supra), Chandrika Prasad Tripathi (supra) and other decisions will not get attracted. The interpretation placed on the 1986 Rules by the learned single Judge in Ashok Kumar (supra) cannot be treated to lay down the correct law. We arrive at the said conclusion as we do not find that there is really any Rule which prescribes filing of treasury challan before the Election Tribunal in election petition after seeking permission at the time of presenting an election petition. Permission, if any, may be sought earlier.Mr. Jain would submit that this is not an incurable defect as the deposit has been made within the period of limitation. The said submission leaves us unimpressed inasmuch as Rule 7 leaves no option to the Judge but to dismiss the petition. Thus, regard being had to the language employed in both the Rules, we are obligated to hold that the deposit of treasury challan which means deposit of the requisite amount in treasury at the time of presentation of the election petition is mandatory. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that no valid election petition was presented. In such a situation, the learned Additional District Judge was bound in law to reject the election petition.