NET RAM Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question, arising for decision in this petition under Articles - 226 and 227 of the Constitution is whether in an election petition brought by more than one person jointly, a deposit of Rs, 2,000, as security for costs of the petition is. not proper compliance with the provisions, of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 43 of 1951. The matter has arisen in the following manner:

(2.) ON 17th April, 1963, after the proceedings had been going on before the Tribunal for nearly a year, Net Ram made an application to the Tribunal praying for the dismissal of the election petition against him without trial on merits on the sole ground that the provisions of Section 117 of the Act had not been properly complied with inasmuch as a sum of Rs. 2,000 only had been deposited as security for costs of the petition. It was contended before the Tribunal that since the petition was made by two persons, it was necessary for each one of them to deposit, Rs. 2,000 as security for costs of the, petition, and in absence of the full deposit of Rs. 4,000 the Election Commission was not competent to entrust the petition for trial to an Election Tribunal, Finding no force in this contention, the learned Tribunal rejected the application on 29th April, 1953, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Net Ram has now invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying that the order of the Election Commission (Respondent No. 1) entrusting the election petition for trial to the Election Tribunal (Respondent No. 2) and all proceedings taken subsequent thereto be quashed and a writ of certiorari be issued to the Respondents.

(3.) THE first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that since Section 85 of the Act provides that if the provisions of Section 117 of the Act are not complied with, the Election Commission shall dismiss the petition, the failure of the Commission to pass such an order is a violation of the mandatory provision of law, and the Election Commission has no power or jurisdiction to refer the petition for adjudication to an Election Tribunal.