AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question raised in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is whether the prescribed authority trying the election petition filed by the petitioner Amar Singh against Jagan Singh, respondent No. 2, under Section 8 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 , (hereinafter called the Act) has rightly dismissed it on the preliminary objection that the election petition did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 13-C and 13-D of the aforesaid Act and this petition was, therefore, not maintainable. It has been held by the prescribed authority that the sum of Rs. 100/- deposited as security by the election petitioner had not been deposited in accordance with law and, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed. The infirmity, according to the prescribed authority, is that the form by means of which the deposit has been made has not been properly filed and the head under which the security is deposited has been wrongly mentioned. The other objection which has prevailed with the prescribed authority is that the election petitioner had failed to submit a separate concise statement of material facts on which he relied and also that the verification of pleadings was not in the prescribed form.

(2.) In my opinion on both these points the learned prescribed authority has seriously erred in law and its order is liable to be quashed. According to Section 13-C of the Act, the security has to be furnished in the prescribed manner. Rule 44(1) of the Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 lays down that at the time of, or before, presenting an election petition, the petitioner or petitioners shall deposit in the treasury or sub-treasury a sum of Rs. 100/- in cash or in Government promissory notes of equal value as security for the costs that may become payable by him or them. Under sub-rule (2) costs payable as a result of the order passed on the election petition are realisable out of such security and the balance to be paid back to the petitioner or to his legal representatives if he dies during the course of the enquiry. If the provisions of Rule 44(1) have not been complied with, the Illaqa Magistrate has to pass an order dismissing the election petition. Now, it is clear that the amount of security required under the law has actually been deposited in the treasury as required by Rule 44(1). The infirmity fround by the prescribed authority is that the amount has been deposited under the head "LII F. Misc receipts in connection with election forfeited amounts in connection with challenged votes and security deposits (local bodies)". This according to the prescribed authority, is not in accordance with the Act. A copy of the challenge Form 32-A is attached with the election petition from which it is clear that the sum of Rs. 100/- was tendered by Shri Amar Singh son of Shri Sahib Singh, resident of village Bhurthala, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana and was also paid on behalf of the said Amar Singh. In the column of "full particulars", occur the following insertions

(3.) this, in my opinion, amounts to substantial compliance with the law relating to deposit of security as contemplated by Rule 44. If this amount is to be available for the purpose of realising the costs which may be granted against the petitioner, then it would, in my opinion, amount to sufficient compliance with the requirement of the statutory provision. To accede to the view taken by the Prescribed Authority is, in my opinion, to sacrifice substance at the alter of mere technical form. The Supreme Court decision in K. Kamraja Nadar V/s. Kunju Thevar, 1958 AIR(SC) 687 in which the scope and effect of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, has been discussed supports the view I am taking in the case in hand. Also see Gian Chand Puran Chand V/s. Smt. Om Prabha Jain, 1959 AIR(P&H) 66 and Rulya Ram V/s. Chaudhri Multan Singh, 1959 AIR(P&H) 121 The defect, on which the Prescribed Authority has relied for holding the deposit not to be in accordance with law, is, in my opinion, too technical to justify, the dismissal of the election petition, in the preliminary stage without going into the allegations relating to corrupt practices etc. It has thus failed to exercise jurisdiction on an illegal ground which is clearly and patently manifest on the face of the record resulting in manifest justice.