YASHWANT SINGH VACLAV Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Singh, J. Petitioner was elected as Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Taria, Vikas Khand Chandauli, District Varanasi. The 2nd respondent, who was also in the reckon ing in the election of Pradhan, canvassed the legality of petitioner's election by means of election petition under Section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (In short the Act' ). On receipt of notice of the election petition, the petitioner filed a written statement, inter-alia on the ground that the election petition was not maintainable in that it was not accompanied by a Treasury challan showing that the amount of Rs. 50 had been deposited in the personal Ledger Account of the Gram Panchayat concerned as security. The petitioner posited the issue regarding maintainability of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 12-Cofthe Act, to be decided as a preliminary issue. The Prescribed Authority by means of the impugned order dated 27-3-97 held that ini tially when the election petition was filed, a sum of Rs. 5/- was deposited towards security, but later on, the election petitioner deposited Rs. 50/- towards security and therefore, it was considered not feasible to dismiss the election petition.

(2.) SRI Sankatha Rai, appearing for the petitioner, canvassed that the deposit of Rs. 5/- vide treasury challan (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) was not in the Personal Ledger Account of the concerned Gram Panchayat, rather, it was in the Personal Account No. 8443 of the District Gaon Fund and the subsequent Treasury Challan (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) also does not bespeak that the deposit of Rs. 50/- was made in the Personal Ledger Account of the Gram Panchayat. Rather, it would appear, it was made in Gaon Fund Account No. 8443. It is urged by the learned counsel that in view of the first proviso to Rule 3 (1) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Dispute) Rules, 1994 (In short the 'rules'), the application under Section 12 (C) (1) of the Act was not liable to be 'entertained' in the absence of a treasury challan showing that the amount of Rs. 50/- had been deposited in the Personal Ledger Account of the Gram Panchayat concerned as security. The learned counsel urged that in view of clause (vi) of Rule 4 of the Rules, the application on merits to be dismissed. The learned counsel placed credence upon a decision of this Court in Ramesh Chand Tiwari v. Addl. District Judge, Basti and others, 1986 Revenue Judgment 106. SRI Wajahat Hussain appearing for the respon dent, repudiated the submissions made by SRI Sankatha Rai and urged that the Treasury Challan (Annexures 4 and 5) reflect unmistakably that the amount was deposited towards security account in rela tion to the election petition relating to the office of Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned. The learned counsel further urged that the account number 8443 in the treasury challan was mentioned by the officials of the office the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Varanasi and no blame can at tach to the election petitioner if the account number mentioned in the treasury challan is not the Personal Ledger Account of the concerned Gram Panchayat. The learned counsel also urged that even if Gaon Fund Account No. 8443 is not the Personal Ledger Account of the concerned Gram Panchayat, the election petition would not be liable to be dismissed in that the provisions contained in Clause (vi) of Rule 4 (1) of the Rules, partake of the nature of being directory and not mandatory.

(3.) RULE 24 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj RULEs which has since been omitted by RULE 6 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election disputes) RULEs 1994, came up for consideration in Shamsher Singh v. 7thaddl. District Judge Varanasi and others, 1991 Revenue Decisions 439. It has been held therein that in case the deposit of security amount is made before expiration of the period of limitation, prescribed for filing election petition, it would amount to sub stantial compliance of the related provisions. Accordingly, the Court found no force in the arguments that the election petition would be defective merely because, it was not accompanied with a treasury challan testifying to the deposit of Rs. 5/- towards security.