TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Election held during September 1999. Respondent No. 5, Heroji Lad had also contested the said election and had secured the second highest number of votes. Shivaji Rao Poal, who was the Election Agent of said respondent no. 5, filed the Election Petition under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') challenging the election of the appellant on various grounds including the ground of commission of corrupt practice. In accordance with the prescribed procedure, the appellant on being served with the notice of the Election Petition, appeared before the High Court and filed an application for dismissal of the Election Petition under Section 86 of the Act on the ground that there has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, there has been non-compliance of Section 117 of the Act, inasmuch as under the aforesaid provision the requirement of law is that the petitioner shall deposit in the High Court in accordance with the Rules of the High Court a sum of ₹ 2,000/- as security for the cost of the petition. The High Court considered the averments made in the Election Petition to the effect that the petitioner had deposited the cost of ₹ 2,000/- in the name of respondent no.5 and also the evidence of respondent no. 5 indicating that he had never deposited the security amount of ₹ 2,000/-, and it is the Election Petitioner who had deposited, and considered the provisions of the Rules of Karnataka High Court as well as the document Exhibit P-5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of discouraging frivolous Election Petition and for compensating the parties on the basis of the result of the Election Petition, and there being no requirement of law as to who could deposit the said amount, in the case in hand the amount having been deposited by the Election Petitioner himself the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that there has been compliance of Section 117 of the Act, and therefore, the same need not be interfered with by this Court. According to the learned counsel the conclusion of the High Court is fortified by the evidence of respondent no. 5 who unequivocally indicated that he had never deposited the sum of ₹ 2,000/- though ostensibly his name appears to be on the receipt Exhibit P-5. 5. Befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter had been carried to this Court and this Court held that the provisions of Section 117 of the Act are mandatory and the High Court is not competent to reduce the amount of security deposited or to dispense with it, and consequently the non-deposit of security amount along with the Election Petition leaves no option to the Court but to reject the Election Petition. We fail to understand how this decision is of any assistance to the case in hand where it is not disputed, that a sum of ₹ 2,000/- had been deposited by the Election Petitioner, as is apparent from the evidence of the Election Petitioner as well as the evidence of respondent no.5. 7. In Aeltemesh Rein vs. Chandulal Ors. [1981]3SCR142 the Election Petitioner had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 117(1) of the Representation of People Act directly came up for consideration. In this case the Assistant Registrar of the High Court directed that the amount of security be deposited to the credit of the Registrar of the High Court in the Reserve Bank of India and in pursuance to the direction, the Election Petitioner deposited the sum of ₹ 2,000/- with a pre- receipted challan issued by the Accounts Department to the credit of the Registrar of the High Court and the Reserve Bank of India had made the endorsement that it has received in cash. The contention of the applicant assailing the maintainability of the Election Petition was that there has been non-compliance of Section 117(1) of the Act inasmuch as Rule 8 of the Elec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that the first part of Section 117 though mandatory, but not the later part. It is not necessary to multiply authorities on the point, but suffice it to say, that the sum of ₹ 2,000/- must be deposited while filing an Election Petition and that is undoubtedly mandatory, but through whom the amount will be deposited etc. cannot be held to be mandatory. That being the position, and in the case in hand the evidence of the Election Petitioner as well as the evidence of Respondent No. 5 unequivocally pointing out that it is the Election Petitioner who deposited the amount of ₹ 2,000/-, we see no infirmity with the conclusion of the High Court that there has been compliance of Section 117 of the Act and consequently the Electio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
