Sheesh Pal Singh vs Gurbux Singh and Others

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—Appellant Sheesh Paul Singh had filed election petition being Misc. No. 22 of 26.2.1998 before the learned Election Tribunal (Deputy Commissioner), Sangrur against the present respondents. The election petition having been dismissed, this is an appeal filed by the appellant.

The only ground oh which the election petition has been dismissed is that there is no compliance of Rule 89 of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 89 of the Rules provides for depositing a sum of Rs. 500/-as cash at the time or before presenting an election petition. Rule 90 of the Rules provides that if the provisions in Rule 89 of the Rules have not been complied with, the Election Tribunal shall pass an order dismissing the election petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount was deposited in the treasury. However, the amount is treated to have been deposited under the wrong head and the Election Tribunal dismissed the election petition of the appellant by holding that the amount deposited by him cannot be considered as security. According to the learned counsel for the appellant this reason for dismissal of the petition is erroneous. Contrary arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. It will be proper to quote the relevant Rules before proceeding further. Rule 89 of Rules reads as under:-

"89. Deposit to be made.- (1) At the time, or before, presenting an election petition, the petitioner or petitioners shall deposit in the treasury a sum of Rupees five hundred in cash or in Government promissory notes of equal value, as security for all costs that may become payable by him or them.

(2) If the petitioner by whom the deposit referred to in sub- rule (1) withdraw his election petition, and in any other case, after final orders have been passed on the election petition, the deposit shall, after such amount as may be ordered to be paid as costs, charges and expenses has been deducted, be returned to the petitioner by whom it was made, and if the petitioner dies during the course of enquiry into the election petition, any such deposit, if made by him, shall after the amount of such costs, as may be ordered to be paid have been deducted, be returned to his legal representative.

(3) All applications for the refund of a deposit shall be made to the Election Tribunal who shall pass orders thereon in accordance with these Rules."

Rule 90 of the Rules reads as under:-

"90. Petition to be dismissed on non-compliance of provisions of the Act and the rules.- If any of the provisions of the Act and rule 88 and rule 89 have not been complied with, the Election Tribunal shall pass an order dismissing the Election Petition and such order shall be final."

From the judgment of the learned Election Tribunal, it is found that it is not disputed that the amount was deposited. However, it was credited into a different Head. For getting a clear picture, it will be proper to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of the Election Tribunal, which reads as under:-

"The petitioner has mentioned in this application that the challan for depositing the security amount was passed by the officials of A.D.C., but from the perusal of challan, it is found that this does not bear the signatures of any official or stamp of office of A.D.C. In rejoinder dated 11.8.1998 filed by the petitioner of the reply to respondent No.l; the petitioner has mentioned that he has deposited the security amount under correct Head, so now, the request to get corrected the Head of security amount is not considerable. At this stage, the petitioner cannot be allowed to deposit security afresh, because the security amount is to be deposited within 45 days of the Election result. Punjab Government has mentioned the below noted Head to deposit the security amount:-

MAJOR HEAD-8443-CIVIL DEPOSITS MINOR HEAD-121-DEPOSITS IN CONNECTION WITH ELECTION SUB HEAD-03-DEPOSITS MADE FOR ELECTION PETITIONS,

-06-DEPOSITS FROM CANDIDATES MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE/ CORPORATION / PANCHAYATS / PANCHAYAT SAMITIS / ZILA PARISHAD ELECTIONS.

The petitioner has not deposited the security amount in the above noted Head, rather has deposited the same by himself in another Head. Thus, the amount deposited by the petitioner cannot be considered as security; because the petitioner has not complied with the rule 89. So, under rule 90 of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1994, the petition is not maintainable which is hereby dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs."

Counsel for the appellant argued that what was required as per the Rules, the appellant had deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 500/- though later on it was found that the same was not deposited under a particular Head.

A photo-copy of the challan form has been produced at Annexure P-2 along with its typed copy. In the challan form, the purpose of deposit is mentioned as under:-

"For Election case, titled as Sheeshpal Singh v. Gurbux Singh s/o Hardev Singh etc."

The Head of the Account in 4th column of challan form is mentioned as under:-

"0070-other Administrative Services-02-Elections-800-others receipts."

The amount of Rs. 500/- is also mentioned in the challan form. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed stress on the observations of the Election Tribunal that the amount of Rs. 500/- was not credited to a particular Head. According to him, Government has prescribed particular Heads and the amount should have been deposited under a particular Head. However, if the compliance of Rule 89 of the Rules has to be seen, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 500/- was not deposited as required under that Rule. Rules do not provide that amount of Rs. 500/- should be deposited in a particular Head and a person depositing the amount may commit a mistake. However, it is not shown as to if such mistake committed whether the amount cannot be treated as deposits under Rule 89 of the Rules. Even, the learned Election Tribunal has not held that the deposits cannot be treated as deposits under Rule 89 of the Rules.

The appellant had also requested to get the Head of the Account corrected and in the alternative requested for depositing the fresh security amount. However, that is not of any importance when I am holding that the deposit under the particular head cannot be treated as to bring a bar of Rules 89 of the Rules.

In view of the above reasons, the appeal succeeds. The respondents are not in a position to show that the consequence of Rule 89 of the Rules should follow in this case.

As a result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Election Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the Election Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.

Parties to appear before the Election Tribunal on 26.10.1999.