SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A.M. KHANWILKAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
Sitaram - Appellant
Versus
Radhey Shyam Vishnav & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1200 of 2018 (@ S.L.P. (C) No. 20768 of 2017)
Decided On : 06-03-2018
(1973) 2 SCC 530; (1981) 2 SCC 689 – Relied upon
RLW 2007 (2) Raj 1551 – Cited with approval
(1975) 4 SCC 832; AIR 1959 SC 837 : 1959 SUPP (2) SCR 516; (1960) 22 ELR 86; (2002) 7 SCC 289; (1999) 4 SCC 274; (1996) 5 SCC 181; AIR 1964 SC 1545 : 1964 (3) SCR 573; (2013) 4 SCC 776; (2009) 9 SCC 310; 1981 WLN (UC) 78 – Referred
1959 SCR 583 : AIR 1958 SC 687; 1959 SUPP (2) SCR 527 : AIR 1959 SC 827 – Distinguished
Civil Writ (CW) No.7637 of 2016 – Not correct law
(b) Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009 – Rule 3(5)(d) r/w Rule 7 – Deposit of treasury challan while presenting election petition – Held mandatory – Non-compliance therewith – Court will have no option but to reject the election petition. (Para 38)
Facts of the case:
The appellant and the 1st respondent were elected to Municipal Council, Kishangarh.
The election to the post of Chairperson of the Municipal Corporation was held on 21.08.2015. The appellant received 23 votes and the 1st respondent secured 18 votes as a consequence of which the appellant was declared elected.
Challenging the election, Election Petition was filed by the 1st respondent alleging that the votes in favour of the elected candidate had been erroneously counted though they deserved to be rejected on the ground that 11 voters had left such marks on the ballot papers that could identify them.
The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the election petition because of non-compliance of Rule 3(d) of the 2009 Rules.
The application was rejected.
The appellant filed Writ Petition before the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
Subsequent filing of challan amounts to non-deposit.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Dipak Misra, CJI.
The singular issue that arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench is justified in dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8238 of 2017 thereby affirming the order dated 23.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (herein after referred to as “the Election Tribunal”) in Election Petition No. 55 of 2016 whereunder the Election Tribunal had rejected the application preferred under Order VII Rule 11(d) and (e) read with Order XIV Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking rejection of the election petition on the foundation that there had been non-compliance of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009 (herein after referred to as “the 2009 Rules”) which are mandatory in character.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts requisite to be stated are that the appellant and the 1st respondent were elected to Municipal Ward Nos. 28 and 45 respectively of Municipal Council, Kishangarh. The election to the post of Chairperson of the Municipal Corporation is to be made from amongst the 45 Ward Members and the said post has been reserved for the OBC category. There is no dispute that both the appellant and the 1st respondent belong to the OBC category. The election was held on 21.08.2015. The appellant, as per the votes counted by the returning officer, received 23 votes and the 1st respondent secured 18 votes as a consequence of which the appellant was declared elected. Challenging the election, Election Petition No. 180 of 2015 was filed by the 1st respondent alleging that the votes in favour of the elected candidate had been erroneously counted though they deserved to be rejected on the ground that 11 voters had left such marks on the ballot papers that could identify them. Apart from the said allegation, certain other aspects were also pleaded. It was also set forth in the petition that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- had been deposited before the Election Tribunal as per law.
3. After filing a reply to the election petition, the appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the election petition because of non-compliance of Rule 3(d) of the 2009 Rules. In addition to the aforesaid, certain other grounds were also urged to reject the election petition but as the said grounds have not been canvassed before us, we need not dwell upon the same.
4. It was contended before the Election Tribunal that as required by the 2009 Rules, an election petition may be filed by a candidate who has been defeated or whose nomination has been rejected to challenge the election by filing an election petition which is required to be accompanied by a treasury challan of Rs. 1,000/- and the Judge hearing the election petition as per Rule 7(3) of the 2009 Rules is obligated to dismiss the election petition which does not comply with the provisions of the said Rules. It was pleaded that though the 1st respondent had filed the election petition on 09.09.2015, yet it was not accompanied by treasury challan of Rs. 1,000/- and to substantiate the same, reliance was placed on the order dated 16.09.2015 passed by the Election Tribunal wherein it had allowed the election petitioner to deposit the amount. The same is also perceptible from the order dated 17.9.2015. The application for rejection was resisted by the election petitioner on the ground that he had filed an application before the court to file the receipt of challan of Rs. 1,000/- and the amount was subsequently deposited and, therefore, the application for rejection of the election petition did not merit consideration.
5. The Election Tribunal took note of the fact that the amount was deposited on 16.08.2015 and further as the election petitioner had filed an application in the court and had, under the direction of the court, deposited the said amount and filed the re
Dr. Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal
Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore
G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar
Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar
Charan Lal Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt
K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar
Charan Lal Sahu v. Fakruddin Ali Ahmed
Aeltemesh Rein v. Chandulal Chandrakar
Chandrika Prasad Tripathi v. Shiv Prasad Chanpuria
M. Karunanidhi v. Dr. H.V. Hande
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.