Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1973 (8) TMI 177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the elections held in 1972 respondents 1 to 5 were elected as members of Legislative Council of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant presented an election petition on June 26, 1972, but did not deposit Rs. 2000/- security as required under Section 117 of the Act, which inter alia provides as follows : 117. Security for costs.-(1) 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 two thousand rupees as security for the costs of the petition. (2) During the course of the trial of an election petition, the High Court may, at any time, call upon the petitioner to give such further security for costs as it may direct. It was contended before th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mences only after notices are issued to the respondents. In support of this proposition, provisions of the repealed Section 85 of the Act are referred to. We are unable to appreciate how the repealed Section 85 of the Act furthers the submission of the petitioner or has any relevance. It is apparent that prior to repeal by Act 47 of 1966, Section 81 provided for the presentation of the election petition by any candidate aggrieved by the result of the election to the Election Commission; Section 83 prescribed what the contents of the petition should be; and Section 85 provided : If the provisions of Section 81, Section 83 or Section 117 are not complied with, the Election Commission shall dismiss the petition : Provided that if a person .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ition stated by us, as will be presently indicated. 3. The right to challenge an election is a right provided by Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, which provides that no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State 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. The right conferred being a statutory right, the terms of that statute had to be complied with. There is no question of any common law right to challenge an election. Any discretion to condone the delay in presentation of the petition or to absolve the petitioner from payment of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Reserve Bank of India in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission as security for the costs of the petition. The petitioner therein had deposited Rs. 1000/- but had not mentioned the complete head of account in the Government Treasury receipt nor was the deposit made in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission as laid down in the aforesaid section. The Election Commission discussed this defect and left the question to the Tribunal to decide after hearing the parties whether the defect could be treated as fatal or one that could be cured by fresh deposit or otherwise so as to secure the costs of the candidate if eventually awarded to him. The Tribunal held that there was no defect in the matter of the head of account and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per application being made in that behalf to the Election Commission or to any person duly authorised by it to receive the same, be he the Secretary to the Election Commission or any one else. This decision, therefore, cannot come to the rescue of a petitioner who has failed to deposit the security as required under Section 117 of the Act or has paid less than the amount specified therein. The decision in Lalaram v. The Supreme Court of India and Ors. [1967] 2 SCR 14 has no relevance to the matter in issue because as pointed out by the High Court that case relates to security being furnished for filing a review petition under the Supreme Court Rules, which stands on a different footing. 5. The argument of the appellant's advocate that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates