Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

On October 30, 1980 the appellant filed his written statement. He pleaded, inter alia, that the election petition was liable to be dismissed in limine under sub-s.

(1) of s. 86 due to non-compliance with the requirements of sub-s.(1) of s.117 of the Act read with rule 8 of the Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Rules, 1967, for the reason that there was no deposit of Rs. 2,000 in cash in the High Court as security for costs, and also for non-compliance with the requirements of sub-s.(3) of s. 81 of the Act as the copy of the election petition served on the appellant was not accompanied by a copy of the photograph of the alleged fancy banner annexed to the petition, as alleged in paragraph 18(b) of the petition. The appellant accordingly raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the election petition.

There are two questions that fall for determination. The first is whether the election petition filed by the respondent under s. 81 read with s.100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was liable to be dismissed in limine under sub-s. (1) of s.86 on the ground that there was non- compliance with the requirements of sub-s. (1) of s. 117 of the Act read with r. 8 of the Election Petitions Rules. The second is whether the election petition is also liable to be dismissed under sub-s. (1) of s.86 of the Act inasmuch as the copy of the election petition furnished to the appellant was not accompanied by a copy of the photograph of the fancy banner referred to in paragraph 18(b) of the petition as required by sub-s. (3) of s.81 of the Act.

In that case, the petitioner enclosed a Government Treasury receipt showing a deposit of Rs.1000 as security for costs in the State Bank of India, Ranchi Branch, but it did not show that the deposit had been made in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission. A question arose whether the election petition was liable to be dismissed summarily under s.85 or sub-s.(3) of s.90 as the requirements of s. 117 of the Act had not been complied with. The Court analyzed s. 117 and observed that it consisted of three parts, viz: (1) The Government Treasury receipt must show that such deposit had actually been made in a Government Treasury or in the Reserve Bank of India. (2) It must show that it had been made in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission. And (3) it must further show that it had been made as security for the costs of the petition. The question then arose whether the words "in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission" were mandatory in character so that if the deposit had not been made in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission as therein specified, the deposit even though made in a Government Treasury or in the Reserve Bank of India and as security for costs of the petition, would be invalid and of no avail. This Court held that these words in s. 117 were directory and not mandatory in their character and that the essence of the provision contained in s. 117 was that the petitioner should furnish security for the costs of the petition and should enclose along with the petition a Government Treasury receipt showing that a deposit of Rs. 1000/- had been made by him either in a Government Treasury or in the Reserve Bank of India to be at the disposal of the Election Commission to be utilized by it in the manner authorized by law and was under its control and payable on a proper application being made in that behalf to the Election Commission or to any person duly authorized by it to receive the same, be he the Secretary to the Election Commission or any one else. If this essential requirement was complied with, no literal compliance was at all necessary with the words "in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission". Though therefore the making of the deposit and the presentation of the receipt thereof along with the petition was held to be mandatory, this Court held that the form in which the deposit should be made was only directory. This Court rejected the contention that the election petition was liable to be dismissed in limine under s. 85 or sub-s.(3) of s. 90 for non-compliance with the requirements of s. 117 of the Act and observed:

It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was total and complete non-compliance of the requirements of sub-s. (3) of s. 81 and therefore the election petition was liable to be dismissed in limine under sub-s. (1) of s.86. The argument to the contrary advanced on behalf of the respondent was that the photograph filed along with the election petition had to be treated as a document in proof of the allegations contained in paragraph 18(b) and not as a part of the election petition. The submission is that there is a distinction 'between a schedule or annexure to the petition referred to in sub-s. (2) of s. 83" and "a document which is merely evidence in the case which is annexed to the election petition" and to such a document sub-s. (3) of s.81 is not attracted.