JUDGMENT

B.N. Mahapatra, J.

The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 24.9.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jajpur (hereinafter referred to as “Election Tribunal”) in Election Misc. Case No.6 of 2012 wherein the Election Tribunal rejected petitioner’s prayer to dismiss the election petition as the same was not presented together with the security deposit.

2. Petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that the petitioner along with Election Petitioner-opposite party contested to the post of Sarpanch, Kalamatia Grama Panchayat in Bari Block, District-Jajpur in the year 2012. In the G.P. Election, the petitioner was declared elected by the Election Officer-cum-B.D.O., Bari. Opposite party challenges the election of the petitioner in Election Misc. Case No.6/2012 before the Election Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner is disqualified to be a candidate for the post of Sarpanch as she has given birth to three children after 1995 i.e. after the cut-off date. The result of election was declared on 21.2.2012 and the election petition was filed on 02.03.2012 without being accompanied by deposit of Security for costs as required under Section 31 of the Grama Panchayats Act. The said amount of security money was deposited on 05.03.2012 that is after three days of filing of the election petition. The Election Tribunal while admitting the election petition issued show-cause notice to the petitioner and on appearance before the Election Tribunal, an objection was filed by the petitioner with a prayer to dismiss the election petition on the ground of non-compliance of statutory provision as laid down under Section 31 of the G.P. Act. The said objection of the petitioner was rejected by the Election Tribunal on the ground that though the security deposit was paid on a later date, the same being paid within the period of limitation, election petition cannot be dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Mr. A. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal is not sustainable as the same has been passed whimsically without application of judicial mind coupled with colourable exercise of powers.

A bare reading of Section-31 of the G.P. Act makes it clear that an Election Petition is to be presented together with the deposit of the security for costs. The word “together” signifies that an election petition whether filed within the period of limitation or beyond the same has to be accompanied by the prescribed deposit towards security for costs which has not been complied with in the present case. Under Section 31 of the G.P. Act, there is no scope for Election Tribunal to exercise any concession/discretion in case of non-compliance of the statutory requirement of deposit of security together with the Election Petition. The decision of the Election Tribunal defeats the object behind the statutory requirement and thereby makes the word “together” redundant. Such an interpretation by the learned Election Tribunal is impermissible under law.

4. Learned Election Tribunal has passed a cryptic order without dealing with arguments raised by the petitioner with respect to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Y. Ghorpade Vs. Shivaji Rao M. Poal and others, reported in AIR 2002 SC 3105 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the requirement of making security deposit is mandatory and the same has to be made while presenting an Election Petition. If the statute provides a particular thing to be done in a particular manner then it should be done in that manner alone and in no other way or should not be done at all. The impugned order causes prejudice to the petitioner, hence liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarif-ud-Din vs. Abdul Gani Lone, AIR 1980 SC 303.

5. Mr. G. Mishra, learned counsel for opp. party submits t