Back
2000 Supreme(All) 1438
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Yatindra Singh, J.
RAJ KUMAR SAHI - Appellant
Versus
IIIRD ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, DEORIA - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 46650 Of 2000
Decided On : 11/23/2000
R.SRIVASTAVA, Sanjay Sharma
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the requirement for deposit of security under Rule 7 and the permissibility of depositing security on behalf of the person challenging the election.
Headnote:
security deposit - election petition - Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994, Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and Up Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994, Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayats (Election of Adhyaksha and Up Adhyaksh and Settlement of election Disputes) Rules, 1994, Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayats (Settlement of Disputes Relating to Member-ship) Rules, 1994, U. P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Presidents and Election Petitions) Order, 1983, U. P. Nagar Palika Nirvachan Yachikaon Ki Niyamawali, 1959 - The court discussed the rules and provisions related to security deposit towards the cost of an election petition challenging an election in a local body. It considered the mandatory nature of the rules, the deposit of security on behalf of the person challenging the election, and the validity of depositing security in another district within the state.
Fact of the Case:
The case dealt with the security deposit towards the cost of an election petition challenging an election in a local body. The petitioner was declared elected, and the contesting respondent filed an election petition claiming that the security amount was deposited on her behalf in a different district. The petitioner objected to the election petition based on the non-personal deposit of security and the deposit being made in a different district.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the requirement for deposit of security under Rule 7 is mandatory, and the security amount can be deposited on behalf of the person challenging the election. It also concluded that the security amount can be deposited in another district provided it is available to the district Magistrate for disposal in accordance with the order of the Judge trying the election petition. The Court below was found to have not correctly decided preliminary objections, and the court provided recommendations for the State Government to consider reframing the rules regarding security deposit.
Issues: The issues included the mandatory nature of the rules regarding security deposit, the permissibility of depositing security on behalf of the person challenging the election, the validity of depositing security in another district, and the correctness of the order of the Court below.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the requirement for deposit of security under Rule 7 is mandatory, and the security amount can be deposited on behalf of the person challenging the election. It also concluded that the security amount can be deposited in another district provided it is available to the district Magistrate for disposal in accordance with the order of the Judge trying the election petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order dated 5. 10. 2000 was quashed. The Court below was directed to proceed and decide the election petition in accordance with the law.
( 1 ) THIS case deals with purpose, reason, and place of security deposit towards the cost of an election petition challenging an election in a local body. Are the rules relating to security deposit mandatory? Unlike Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (the Representation Act) the rules dealing with challenge to an election in a local body do not prescribe the consequence of non-deposit, still is non-deposit of the security or non-accompaniment of receipt showing the security deposit fatal to an election petition? Should the security amount be deposited in the government treasury or in the State Bank of India (S. B. I.) situate within the district in which that local body is situate and where election is challenged or can it be deposited in another district. While considering these questions, it is also recommended that the State Government may consider refraining the Rules regarding deposit of security detailed in paragraph 4 of the judgment (Heading : Few Recommendations, paragraphs 28 and 29 of the judgment ).
( 2 ) GEOGRAPHICALLY, the State of Uttar Pradesh is divided into districts. A district is broadly categorised into urban and rural area. The urban area of a district is governed by a local body under the U. P. Municipal Corporation Act (the Corporation Act) or under the U. P. Municipality act (the Municipality Act) depending upon its population. The local body of urban area in a district is known by different names and amongst the others has one person as a Chairperson : deputy Chairperson ; and elected members.
( 3 ) RURAL area of a district is divided into Blocks, which in turn consist of villages. A Gram panchayat is a local body governing a village ; it could comprise more than one village also. Pradhan is its Chairperson. It is governed by the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. 1947 (the Panchayat raj Act ). Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat govern a block and a district under U. P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhinlyam, 1961 (the Zila Panchayat Act ). Kshettra panchayat amongst the others consists of all Pradhans of Gram Panchayats in that Block and some elected members. It is chaired by a Pramukh. Zila Panchayat amongst the others consists of all Pramukhs of Kshettra Panchayat in that district and some elected members. An Adhyaksha chairs it.
( 4 ) THESE local bodies are broadly dealt by four Acts (mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judgment) and have a Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, elected members, nominated member, and ex-officto members. Election of these persons and settlement of election dispute is dealt by these Acts and the Rules framed thereunder. The State Government has framed following Rules for settlement of election disputes in different local bodies. In this writ petition, we are concerned with security deposit and 1 have also indicated relevant rule for the same after the rules :
(i) Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994. (The Panchayat election Rules) (Rule 3 ). (ii) Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and Up Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994. (The Kshettra Panchayat Pramukh Rules) (Rule 38 ). (iii) Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats (Removal of Dis-qualification and Settlement of disputes Relating to Disqualification and Member-ship) Rules. 1994 (The Kshettra Panchayat member Rules) [sub-rule 7 of Rule 7 (Rule 7 (7)]. (iv) Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayats (Election of Adhyaksha and Up Adhyaksh and Settlement of election Disputes) Rules, 1994. (The Zila Panchayat Adhyaksha Rules) (Rule 36 ). (v) Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayats (Settlement of Disputes Relating to Member-ship) Rules. 1994. (The Zila Panchayat Member Rules) (Rule 7 ). (vi) U. P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Presidents and Election Petitions) Order. 1983. (The Municipality Rules) (Rule 63 ). {vii) U. P. Nagar Palika Nirvachan Yachikaon Ki Niyamawali, 1959 (The Nagar Mahapalika rules) (Rule 11 ).
( 5 ) THE first rule in th
