1. Election appeal — Failure to enclose Government Treasury receipt for security deposit under Section 119A, Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Appeal dismissed as incompetent. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 199
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
Kumaranand, Appellant
Versus
Brij Mohan Lal and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 644 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. K. Garg, Advocate of M/s- Ramamurthi and Co., for Appellant; Mr. B. D. Sharma, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1.
* See Election Appeal No. 93 of 1963, D/- 25-2-l964 - Raj.
Advocates:
B.D.SHARMA, R.K.GARG, RAMAMURTHI
B.D.SHARMA, R.K.GARG, RAMAMURTHI
Failure to comply with the procedural requirement of depositing security for costs under Section 119A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, does not automatically render an appeal incompetent as no express penalty is prescribed; the court retains jurisdiction to allow rectification of such mistakes.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 119A - Deposit of security for costs of appeal - Non-compliance with the requirement to enclose a Government Treasury receipt - Absence of express penalty for non-compliance - Jurisdiction of the court not affected - Court has discretion to permit rectification of the mistake. (Paras 3, 4)
(B) Election Law - Procedural requirements - Strict observation of statutory requirements is the general rule, but where the law does not prescribe the consequence or penalty for non-compliance with certain procedural requirements, the jurisdiction of the tribunal is not affected. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
An election was declared void by the Election Tribunal. On appeal to the High Court, the appellant failed to enclose a Government Treasury receipt for the security deposit as required by statute, instead depositing the amount in the office of the Registrar of the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal as incompetent for non-compliance with the statutory provision.
Findings of Court:
The deposit made in the High Court did not comply with the requirements of the Act as it was not in favor of the statutory authority. However, the Act imposes no express penalty for non-compliance with this specific section, unlike other sections where dismissal is mandatory.
Issues: Whether the failure to comply with the requirements of Section 119A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, regarding the deposit of security for costs, automatically renders an appeal incompetent or if the court has the jurisdiction to allow rectification of such a mistake.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a prescribed penalty for non-compliance with Section 119A, the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the appeal is not jeopardized. The court may exercise its discretion to allow the rectification of the mistake, particularly when the registry of the court accepted the presentation and numbered the appeal, thereby contributing to the irregularity.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Maintainability of appeal — Whether failure to deposit security in Government Treasury as mandated by Section 119A, Representation of the People Act, 1951, renders appeal incompetent. (Para 1 )
3. Absence of statutory penalty for non-compliance with Section 119A — Role of court registry in accepting defective presentation — Discretion to permit rectification of procedural errors. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
4. Where a statute prescribes a procedural requirement but specifies no penalty for non-compliance, the jurisdiction of the tribunal is not affected, and the court may permit rectification. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Order set aside — Appellant granted opportunity to rectify security deposit defect — High Court directed to hear appeal on merits. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Does failure to comply with Section 119A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, regarding security deposits automatically result in dismissal of an appeal?
No. Unlike other sections of the Act, Section 119A does not prescribe an express penalty for non-compliance. Therefore, such failure does not necessarily result in dismissal or affect the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the appeal. (Para 3 )
7. What is the legal effect of a procedural default in election law when the statute does not specify the consequence of non-compliance?
If the special law does not state the consequence or lay down a penalty for non-compliance with certain procedural requirements, the jurisdiction of the tribunal entrusted with the trial of the case is not affected. (Para 3 )
8. Can a court permit the rectification of a mistake in the deposit of security for costs in an election appeal?
Yes. In the absence of a prescribed penalty for non-compliance with Section 119A, the court has the discretion to either proceed with the appeal after rectifying the mistake or decline to proceed. (Para 4 , 5 )
Judgment
SHAH, J. :
At the last general elections held in February 1962 the appellant Kumaranand contested a seat in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Beawar constituency and was declared elected. Brij Mohan Lal who was a candidate at the election then presented a petition challenging the election of the appellant on the ground that the appellant had in the course of the election committed corrupt practices within the meaning of S.123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by publishing a poem containing false statements of fact relating to the personal character and conduct of the applicant Brij Mohan Lal and which were highly prejudicial to his election prospects. The Election Tribunal declared the appellant s election void under S.100(1)(b) of the Act. Against the order of the Tribunal, the appellant appealed to the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. At the hearing of the appeal it was contended by the respondent Brij Mohan Lal, inter alia, that the appellant had failed to enclose with the memorandum of appeal a Government Treasury receipt showing that a deposit of five hundred rupees had been made by him in favour of the Election Commission as security for the costs of the appeal, and his appeal was, on that account, not maintainable. The High Court held that the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions of S. l19A of the Act and on that account the appeal filed by him was incompetent. The High Court declined to accede to the request made by the appellant to condone the delay, if any, in the filing of the appeal under the proviso to S. 116A(3) and to rectify the defect arising from the appellant s failure to enclose a Government Treasury receipt for Rs.500 as required by S. 119A, and dismissed the appeal. With special leave, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
2. Thc facts bearing on the plea which has found favour with the High Court of Rajasthan and the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act in force at the material time may be briefly stated. Section 119A of the Act which was added by S. 64 of Act 27 of 1956 and was further amended by Act 58 of 1958 reads as follows :
"Every person who prefer an appeal under Chapter IVA shall enclose with the memorandum of appeal a Government Treasury receipt showing that a deposit of five hundred rupees has been made by him either in a Government Treasury or in the Reserve Bank of India in favour of the Election Commission as security for the costs of the appeal."
Instead of enclosing with the memorandum of appeal a Government Treasury receipt showing that a deposit of Rs. 500 had been made in favour of the Election Commission, the appellant through his Advocate Vijay Chandra Mehta tendered on October 21, 1963, the amount of Rs. 500 in the office of the Registrar of the High Court. The amount tendered was accepted and was duty credited in the name of the appellant as "security deposit". The tender form for payment into Court of the security for costs, as competed by the office of the Registrar, High Court, Rajasthan, was as follows :
"Original tender: 77 1/ 21-10-63 R. R. D. No. 239/31-10-63.
In the High Court of Judicature, for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
Jaipur Bench
Instruction to applicant : Fill up accurately Columns 1 to 4
1. Name of party on whose behalf money is tendered: Shri Kumaranand.
2. Name of parties and number of the suit: Kumaranand v. Brij Mohan Lal D. B. Election Appeal 1963.
3. Nature of payment : Security Deposits:
4. Amount tendered : Rs. 500 (Rs. Five hundred only).
5. Office report : May be deposited.
Sd/. Vijay Chandra Mehta, Sd/- Illegible, 21-10-63
Stamp. Signature of Cashier
Dated Dated
Receipt acknowledged in Registrar No. R.R.D. No. 239/31-10-63 only by credited Dated to S. B. Ch. No. 157 /54/ 21-10-63.
Sd/. Mohammed Haji, 31-10-63.
Signature of Receiving Officer.
N.B. -To be filed with the record
Sd/- Prem Raj,
31-10-63
Signature of Account.
It is clear from the terms of the tender that the amount was dep
