Summary
The Supreme Court rejected a municipal election petition that was filed without the required treasury deposit and accompanying challan. Under Rajasthan’s 2009 Election Petition Rules, deposit of Rs.1,000 at presentation was mandatory and non-compliance required dismissal. A later court-permitted deposit, even within the limitation period, did not cure non-deposit at filing. The Court distinguished curable irregularities in the mode of an existing deposit from absence of the deposit itself and disapproved the contrary interpretation in Ashok Kumar.
Issues
- Whether the election petition had to be accompanied at presentation by the challan evidencing the Rs.1,000 treasury deposit.
- Whether a later deposit within limitation could cure initial non-deposit.
- Whether general deposit procedures required the petitioner to await an order after filing.
Provisions considered
- Rule 3(5)(d), Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009Required the election petition to be accompanied by the treasury challan, meaning the requisite deposit must exist at presentation. (¶¶ 8, 37, 38)
- Rule 7(3), Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009Mandated dismissal for non-compliance; later deposit did not validate the petition filed without the required deposit. (¶¶ 9, 38, 39)
Held
- The statutory right to challenge an election must be exercised on the prescribed terms. Rule 3(5)(d) required the petition and treasury challan to coexist at presentation, and the challan requirement embodied actual deposit of the security amount. Rule 7(3) left no discretion to overlook complete non-deposit. (¶¶ 13, 18, 30, 37, 38)
- A distinction exists between the mandatory deposit and directory matters concerning its mode. Cases permitting substantial compliance or correction of an irregular deposit did not excuse total non-deposit. Authorities addressing verification, true copies or affidavits did not supply a power to cure this missing mandatory prerequisite. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37)
- The general civil, financial and treasury rules did not require postponing the deposit until after presenting the petition and obtaining permission in it. Permission, if needed, could be sought earlier. The contrary interpretation adopted in Ashok Kumar did not state the correct law; a prior permission followed by timely deposit and filing stood on a different footing. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37)
- The contention that the later deposit was within the limitation period did not save a petition presented without the mandatory security. In that situation no valid election petition had been presented and rejection was required. The Court did not adjudicate the allegations about identifying ballot marks. (¶¶ 2, 38, 39)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. High Court and Election Tribunal orders set aside; election petition rejected for failure to make the mandatory deposit at presentation.