RANGOLI RAJAK Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The disgruntled petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court by filing this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India thereby challenging the order dtd. 13/2/2023 (Annexure-P/8) passed by the Election Tribunal in pending election petition whereby rejected the petitioner's application for dismissing the election petition on the ground that the requisite mandatory formality of depositing an amount of Rs.500.00 towards security deposit at the time of presentation of election petition was not fulfilled by the election-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner sanguinely submits that looking to the order-sheet dtd. 12/8/2022 made appendage as Annexure-P/5 although depicts that an amount of Rs.500.00 was deposited through challan, which is also made part of election-petition, but it purely does not fulfill the requirement envisaged in Rule 7 of M.P. Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for brevity "Rules of 1995'). For ready reference, Rule 7 is reproduced hereunder:- 7. Deposit of security. - At the time of presentation of an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit with the specified officer a sum of Rs. five hundred as security. Where the election of more than one candidate is called in question, a separate deposit of an equivalent amount shall be required in respect of each such returned candidates.

(3.) Imprecating the non-fulfillment of mandatory requirement, learned counsel for the petitioner elaborates that Rule 7 clearly provides that the amount has to be deposited before the Specified Officer and it is for the Specified Officer to suggest as to in what manner it is to be deposited. He propounds that the election-petitioner cannot choose the mode to deposit the fee. Taking strength from an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 198/2018 (Smt. Anushka Rai Vs.The Prescribed Authority/ District Magistrate), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application ought to have been allowed by the Election Tribunal and election petition should have been dismissed, conversely rejected the application observing that the submission of receipt of challan showing deposit of Rs.500.00 along with election petition fulfills the requirement of Rule 7 of Rules of 1995. He iterates that the impugned order is de hors the requirement of Rule 7 and further contrary to law laid down by the Division Bench in case of Smt. Anushka Rai (Supra). On such premise, learned counsel for the petitioner imploringly submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside by allowing the instant petition.