ROOPA SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 12.07.2010 (Annexure P-10) by which the election petition filed by the petitioner against the election of respondent No.2 has been dismissed holding that the same was not maintainable in view of non-compliance of the statutory provisions of the Rules governing the conduct of such election petition. It is contended by the petitioner that the election of respondent No.2 was called in question in an election petition earlier filed along with which a requisite deposit of security amount was made. It was found by the election petitioner that such an election petition was not properly drafted, there were certain necessary averments, which were left, therefore, a prayer was made for withdrawal of the said election petition on 06.03.2010, which was allowed. A fresh election petition was thereafter filed on the same date by the petitioner in appropriate manner within the limitation but an objection was raised that the deposit of the security amount was not made while presenting the second election petition and, therefore, on the said objection the matter was heard. After hearing the parties, the Election Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the election petitioner has not deposited the amount of security, therefore, the election petition was dismissed. It is contended that the petitioner has annexed with the second election petition the security deposit made by her when the first election petition was submitted and that deposit should have been treated as security deposit in compliance of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (herein after referred to as 'Rules). It was grossly overlooked by the Election Tribunal that such a deposit was not withdrawn by the petitioner when the earlier election petition was withdrawn and the said deposit could have been treated as a deposit for the purposes of filing of a second election petition on the same subject matter. Thus, it is contended that the dismissal of the election petition on such a technical objection is not justified. It is claimed that the order impugned is liable to be quashed and the Election Tribunal is liable to be commanded to decide the election petition of the petitioner in accordance to law on merits.

(2.) Opposing the claim made by the petitioner, the respondent No.2, the returned candidate, has filed a return. Along with the return the respondent No.2 has placed the similar documents on record, which the petitioner had filed. Certain more order-sheets have been placed on record. It is contended that there was mandatory requirement of Rule 7 of the Rules that a deposit of security should be made while presenting the election petition. It is specifically provided in the said Rule that where the election of more than one candidate is called in question, a separate deposit of security in equal amount shall be required in respect of each such returned candidate. Therefore, it was necessary on the part of the petitioner to deposit the security amount afresh for the purposes of filing of a second election petition. It is further contended that no liberty was claimed for filing of the second election petition and by such simple withdrawal of the earlier election petition, the petitioner has lost the right to challenge the election of the returned candidate by way of filing another petition. It is contended that in view of this, the election petition of the petitioner was rightly dismissed as not maintainable and no wrong is committed by the Election Tribunal. Thus, it is contended that the petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) After hearing the rival submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, it is to be seen whether on such a technical ground, rejection of the election petition was justified or not. The settled position of law is that if the specific provisions are made with respect to filing and conduct of an election petition, the said provisions of law are required to be fulfilled. If there is non-compliance of such mandatory provisions, the consequence is already provided in the Rules. The scheme of Rules prescribes that the election petition is to be presented as per Rule 3 of the Rules. The parties to the petition are prescribed in Rule 4 of the Rules. The contents of the petition are prescribed in Rule 5 of the Rules. The relief which may be claimed by an election petitioner is prescribed in Rule 6 of the Rules. In definite words under Rule 7 of the Rules, the procedure for deposit of the security for the purpose of filing of an election petition is provided, which read thus :