ABHAY DARE Vs. GIRDHAR PATEL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission.

(2.) This petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to order dated 26.8.2016; whereby, in an election petition, the Tribunal (Sixth Additional District Judge, Sagar), has dismissed the applications under Order 7, Rule 11 , Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, one is dated 11.8.2016 and the other is dated 22.8.2016.

(3.) Whereas, vide application dated 11.8.2016, the petitioner who is a returned candidate and is a Sitting Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Sagar, raised an objection as to the security amount of Rs.250.00 deposited vide challan receipt No. 15, which as per petitioner was an amount deposited by one Gajendra Patel under the head 0070 in relation to some administrative work. That, the petitioner has utilized the amount deposited by some other person as security amount in the election petition. It was also contended that as there are three election petitioners, Rs.250.00 each ought to have deposited the security amount, instead only Rs.250.00 was deposited and that of some one else's deposit has been used. The Tribunal rejected the contention on the findings that the original challan receipt has been filed witnessing the deposit of Rs.250.00, the copy whereof is on record as Annexure P/9. The receipt as evident therefrom bears an entry that the amount is deposited on account of Election Petition for Nagar Nigam, Sagar Mayor Post. . The amount thus is not for any administrative services, which might have been deposited for by the said Gajendra Patel in whose favour a certificate has been issued by the District Treasury Officer on 10.8.2016. Thus, the amount deposited towards security by the Election Petitioner is under the head of Election Petition and the amount said to be deposited by the Gajendra Singh is under a differed head, i.e., in respect of some administrative work. Since, the petitioner fails to establish that the amount deposited as a security for an election petition is also a deposit under other administrative service, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the Security amount is duly deposited by the respondent Election Petitioner cannot be faulted with. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to suffer a non deposit of Security amount. No interference on that account is caused.