RAMJEET PRASAD Vs. D J SIDDHARTH NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. Sri M. D. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised an interesting question of law, namely as to whether the time, for depositing the fees of Rs. 100 as security towards the cost of election petition, prescribed under Rule 7 (7) of U. P. Kshettra Panchayats (Removal of Disqualification and Settlement of Dispute Relating to Disqualification and Membership) Rules, 1994, can be extended even when the same was not tendered before presenting the petition, upon an application made subsequently.

(2.) IN the present case, it is alleged that simply by sheer mistake in the calculation, as pointed out in para 3 of the petition, supported by the records, the petitioner was shown to have been defeated. INasmuch as the petitioner had secured 158 votes against '24' votes secured by the respon dent No. 3 inward numbers to 4 of Gram Panchayat 'bagahi'. The petitioner had polled '145' votes and '143' votes respectively in booch number 130 and 131 against '262' and '145' respectively polled by respondent No. 3 in Gram Panchayat 'gangadharpur' of Ward No. 2 to 11. Therefore, the total votes polled by the petitioner come to '288' in Gangadharpur Panchayat aggre gating to '288' added with the votes polled in Gram Panchayat 'bagahi', the grand total comes to (158 + 145 + 143) 446. Whereas the respondent No. 3 polled (24 + 262 + 145) 431 votes. By mistake the sum total of votes 145+ 143 polled by the petitioner has been shown, as 268 instead of 288. The petitioner, then filed election petition No. of 4 of 1995 without the said security deposit. But however, on 20-7-1995, he sought for permission to deposit the said security upon condonation of delay. The said two applica tions have been dismissed by an order dated 3-8-1995 on the ground that the election petition filed without the security deposit is liable to be dis missed which is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. It is this order which is hereby challenged.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the contentions of both the parties, it is necessary to refer to relevant provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to R. P. Act, 1951) and the said Rules- which are being dealt with shortly hereinafter.