SARLA TRIPATHI Vs. KAUSHILYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Noticing an apparent conflict with regard to the requirement of security deposit with the election petition challenging election under the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat Act') in two sets of decisions, one of us (Dipak Misra, J.) has referred the question as to whether the security deposit under rule 7 of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Election Petition Rules') is required to be made only at the time of presentation of the election petition or the deposit can even be made thereafter within the period of limitation prescribed for presenting such petitions, for authoritative pronouncement. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 20.11.2000 (Annexure P -5) passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, by which he has set aside the order dated 17.7.2000 passed by the Additional Collector, Rewa, in Case No. 10/C -134/99 -2000. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Ratangaonwa in election held on 1.2.2000. The election of the petitioner was challenged by the respondent No. 1 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Mauganj, Tah. Mauganj, District Rewa under section 122 of the Panchayat Act. The petitioner had raised objection to the maintainability of the election petition inter alia on the ground that the amount of security of Rs. 500/ - had not been deposited at the time of the presentation of the election petition as required under Rule 7 of the Election Petition Rules and the election petition was, therefore, liable to be summarily dismissed under Rule 8 thereof. The Sub Divisional Officer rejected the preliminary objection by order Annexure P -3 but in revision, the Additional Collector sustained the objection and dismissed the election petition. In a further revision before the Commissioner, the order of the Additional Collector has been set aside and, therefore, the present petition has been filed challenging the said order. We may record that it is not in dispute that neither the Additional Collector nor the Commissioner had any jurisdiction to entertain a revision in respect of an order passed by the specified Officer and, therefore, we have to examine only the validity of the order passed by the Specified Officer by which the preliminary objection has been rejected.

(2.) The Panchayat Act has evolved a three tier system of Panchayats; Gram Panchayat at the village level, Janpad Panchayat at the block level and Zila Panchayat for every district. The Gram Panchayat is constituted of elected Panchas and Sarpanch and Janpad Panchayat and District Panchayat of members elected for the constituency and other members as enumerated in section 22 and 29 of the Act. Election of such Panchas and Members can be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner within 30 days from the date on which the election in question was notified and such petitions are required to be inquired into and disposed of according to such procedure as may be prescribed. Section 2(32) of the M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957 defines "prescribed" to mean prescribed by Rules made under an enactment. Section 95 of the Act empowers the State Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and accordingly, with a view to prescribe the manner of presentation of the petitions under section 122 of the Act and the procedure for inquiring into and disposal of such petitions, the said Election Petition Rules have been made by the State Government. Since the question before us requires interpretation of section 122, Rule 7 and Rule 8, these provisions are reproduced hereunder for ready reference :

(3.) 1985 JLJ 644 = AIR 1986 MP 49]. A learned Single Judge of this Court (T.S. Doabia, 1.) in Dr. Omprakash Soni v. Ashok Kumar Bhargava and others [1995(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 309 = AIR 1996 MP 43], relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in F.A. Sapa v. Singora [AIR 1991 SC 1557], construed a similar rule as mandatory and upheld the summary dismissal of the petition. The decision of learned C.K. Prasad, J. appears to have based his decision on the provision of above Act No.9 of 1996 where deficit in amount of security could be made good within the period fixed for filing the election petition. Such is not the case here. There is no evidence that the security deposit, as stated by the election petitioner, was made on the date of presentation of the petition and only receipt for the same came be issued in his favour subsequently. Thus, for non -compliance of Rule 7, the election petition deserved summary rejection under Rule 8 of the Rules framed for trying election petitions."