Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009: rr. 3(5)(d) and 7(3) – Election to the post of Chairperson of Municipal Corporation – Challenged by filing election petition – Application seeking rejection of election petition for non-compliance of r. 3(5)(d) – Application dismissed by Election Tribunal – In writ petition challenging order of Tribunal, High Court held that the application was not maintainable – On appeal, held: R.3(5)(d) mandates that election petition has to be accompanied by the treasury challan and with the treasury challan, there has to be deposit in the treasury – R.7(3) mandates dismissal of election petition for non-compliance of rules – Therefore, the election Tribunal was bound in law to reject the election petition – Election Laws.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Rule 3(5) (d) of Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009 commands that the election petition shall be accompanied by the treasury challan. The word used in the Rule is ‘accompanied’ and the term ‘accompany’ means to co-exist or go along. There cannot be a separation or segregation. The election petition has to be accompanied by the treasury challan and with the treasury challan there has to be a deposit in the treasury. [Para 37] [625-B-C]
2. There is no rule which prescribes filing of treasury challan before the Election Tribunal in election petition after seeking permission at the time of presenting an election petition. Permission, if any, may be sought earlier. [Para 37] [625-E] Gulab Singh v. The Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class and Others 1981 WLN (UC) 78 ; Bajrang Lal v. Kanhaiya Lal and Others RLW 2007 (2) Raj 1551 – relied on.
3. Rule 7 of Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009 leaves no option to the Judge but to dismiss the petition. Thus, regard being had to the language employed in both the Rules, the deposit of treasury challan which means deposit of the requisite amount in treasury at the time of presentation of the election petition is mandatory. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that no valid election petition was presented. In such a situation, the Election Tribunal was bound in law to reject the election petition. [Para 38] [625-H; 626-A] Charan Lal Sahu v. Fakruddin Ali Ahmed and Others (1975) 4 SCC 832 – followed.
Charan Lal Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt and Others (1973) 2 SCC 530 ; Aeltemesh Rein v. Chandulal Chandrakar and others (1981) 2 SCC 689 – relied on. K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar and Others [1959] SCR 583 : AIR 1958 SC 687; Chandrika Prasad Tripathi v. Shiv Prasad Chanpuria and Others [1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 527 : AIR 1959 SC 827 ; M. Karunanidhi v. Dr. H.V. Hande and Others (1983) 2 SCC 473 ; Om Prabha Jain v. Gian Chand and Another AIR 1959 SC 837 : [1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 516 ; Budhi Nath Jha v. Manilal Jadav (1960) 22 ELR 86 ; M.Y. Ghorpade v. Shivaji Rao M. Poal and Others (2002) 7 SCC 289 ; T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose and Others (1999) 4 SCC 274 ; Dr. Shipra and Others v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal and Others (1996) 5 SCC 181 ; Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore and Others AIR 1964 SC 1545 : [1964] 3 SCR 573 ; G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar (2013) 4 SCC 776 ; Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar (2009) 9 SCC 310 – held inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.