1. Election petition challenging election to Legislative Assembly — Security deposit for costs under Section 117, Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Dispute over deposit's form. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1959 Supreme(SC) 230
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P.SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. Gajendragadkar, K. Subba Rao, K.C. Das Gupta and J.C. Shah, JJ.
Budhi Nath Jha - Appellant
Versus
Manilal Jadav - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 318 of 1959
Decided On : 25-11-1959
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Dipak Datta Choudhri, Advocate.
For the Appellant :Dipak Datta Choudhri, Advocate.
Requirements under Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, regarding the specific wording of security deposits are directory, not mandatory. Substantial compliance is sufficient if the security is furnished and available for the payment of costs to the successful party.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 117 - Security deposit for election petition - Omission of specific words "in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission" in the treasury chalan is not fatal - Such requirements are directory and not mandatory - Substantial compliance is sufficient if the deposit can be utilized for the purpose of paying costs to the successful party (Para 7).
(B) Interpretation of statutory requirements - Technical objections regarding the wording of a security deposit should not be strictly construed if the essence of the provision, i.e., furnishing security, is met (Para 7).
(C) Security deposit - If a chalan is enclosed with an election petition, it must necessarily be read as security for the costs of that specific petition (Para 8).
Facts of the case:
An election petition was filed challenging an election to a Legislative Assembly. A security deposit of Rs. 1000 was made, but the treasury chalan did not specifically state that the amount was deposited in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission, nor did it explicitly mention the specific election petition. The Election Tribunal held this to be substantial compliance, but the High Court dismissed the petition for non-compliance with the statutory requirements.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the omission of the specific phrase "in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission" was a mere irregularity and not fatal to the maintainability of the petition. It further held that a deposit accompanying a petition is inherently linked to that petition.
Issues: Whether the provisions of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, had been substantially complied with despite the absence of specific wording in the security deposit chalan.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the requirements of Section 117 regarding the specific wording of the security deposit are directory rather than mandatory. Substantial compliance is sufficient as long as the security is furnished and available for the payment of costs. Literal or technical compliance is not intended.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether failure to specify the deposit in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission or the specific petition constitutes fatal non-compliance with Section 117. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 )
3. The requirement to name the Secretary is directory, not mandatory; substantial compliance is sufficient if the deposit is available for the intended purpose of costs. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 )
4. Substantial compliance with Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is sufficient; technical omissions in the security deposit chalan are not fatal. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Election Tribunal directed to determine the controversy. (Para 9 )
6. Is the requirement to deposit security in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission mandatory under Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
No, the requirement is directory, not mandatory. Substantial compliance is sufficient if the deposit can be utilized by the Election Commission for payment of costs to the successful party. (Para 7 )
7. Does a security deposit chalan need to explicitly recite the specific election petition it pertains to for the petition to be maintainable?
No. A security deposit chalan accompanying an election petition is necessarily read as security for the costs of that specific petition. (Para 8 )
8. What constitutes substantial compliance with the security deposit requirements under Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
Substantial compliance is met if the petitioner furnishes security for costs and encloses a Government Treasury receipt that is at the disposal of the Election Commission for paying costs. (Para 7 )
JUDGMENT :
B.P. Sinha, J.
1. The only question for determination in this appeal by leave of the High Court of Judicature at Patna under article 133(l)(a) of the Constitution of India is, whether the provisions of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), had been substantially complied with by the appellant, when he filed his election petition numbered as Election Petition No. 365 of 1957, for setting aside the election of the respondent, challenging his election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from Godda Constituency in the district of Santhal Parganas. The Election Tribunal, presided over by the District Judge of Santhal Parganas at Dumka, answered the question in the affirmative. The High Court, on being moved by the respondent under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, held otherwise; and by its order dated 13th February, 1958, ordered that the election petition filed by the appellant "should be dismissed for non-compliance of the requirements of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act". When we heard the appeal on 12th November, 1959, we announced that the appeal will be allowed and the order under appeal passed by the High Court set aside, and proceedings before the Election Tribunal were to continue. We also stated that our reasons for the decision will follow later. The following are our reasons for the decision already announced.
2. It is not necessary to state the facts of the case in detail. It is enough to state that the appellant, who was one of the candidates for election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from the constituency aforesaid, filed the election petition against the respondent challenging his election on certain grounds. As was necessary under the law, the appellant had a deposit made of Rs. 1000 as security for costs. The chalan showing the deposit is in these terms:
"Chalan of cash paid into the State Bank of India at Bhagalpur.
To be filled by the remitter:
By whom tendered (Name) Jai Kant Jha
Name (or designation) and address of the person on whose behalf money is paid: Shri Budhi Nauth Jha, `Khairava' Village and PO Sonour PS, Godda district., Santhal Parganas.
Full particulars of the remittance and the authority (if any) Deposit for election petition as security.
Amount Rs. 1000, Total 1000
To be filled by the Departmental Officer of the Treasury:
Head of account Central (civil) Section P. Deposit not bearing interest (c) other deposits.
Date
Order of the Bank Correct receive and grant receipt.
Signature and? (full designation of the officer ordering the money to be paid in).
Received payment (in words)
Treasurer Accountant Date Tresury Officer
Attested Agent.
Sd/- V.S. Rajagoplan. 17-7-57. Under-Secretary,
Election Commission, India."
3. Thereupon, the Election Commissioner passed the following order on 16th May, 1957:
`The Treasury chalan enclosed with the petition is defective inasmuch as it does not specifically mention that the amount has been deposited in favour of the Secretary, Election Commission. This may make it difficult for the costs, if any, ordered against the petitioner to be realised out of the deposit. It will be for the Tribunal to decide during trial after hearing the parties whether the defect in the deposit is fatal or may be cured, e.g. by a fresh deposit or otherwise so as to safeguard the respondents' right of costs if any awarded in their favour."
4. By his petition dated 27th August, 1957, the respondent put in a petition headed "under Section 90(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951," to the effect that requirements under Section 117 of the Act have not been fulfilled inasmuch as the deposit of the required security had not been made in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission. This point was raised by way of a preliminary objection and it was prayed that the election petition be dismissed in limine, on that ground. A number of issues were framed on 21st September, 1957, the relevant iss
