( 1 ) HAJI Abdul Wahid has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash a decision of the Election Tribunal, Allahabad dated 25-9-1957, by which the Tribunal dismissed under Section 90 (3) of the Representation of the People Act an election, petition which had been presented by the present petitioner challenging the election of opposite party No. 1, Dr. Balkrishna Vishunath Keskar, to the House of the People from the sultanpur Mus-firakhana Constituency No. 358. The ground, on which the Tribunal dismissed the election petition under Section 90 (3) of the representation of the People Act, was that the Government Treasury receipt attached to the election petition by the petitioner when he presented the election petition to the Election commission, did not show that the sum of Rs. 1,000/- deposited as security had been deposited in favour of the Secretary, Election Commission. The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 117 of the Representation of the People Act were mandatory and, since the receipt did not have inscribed on it the words in favour of the Secretary, Election Commission, there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act- It is this decision that has been challenged by this writ petition.

( 2 ) WHEN this writ petition came up for hear-ing before us, a very similar point bad already been decided by this Court in Bhuvanesh Bhushan Sharma v. Election Tribunal, Farrukhabad, 1958 all LJ 443: (AIR 1958 All 587 ). It was held in that case that if the head of account prescribed by the Central Government for the deposit of security for costs of an election petition was correctly shown in a Government Treasury receipt, it necessarily followed that the deposit was in favour of the Secretary, Election Commission, and consequently the entry of the head of account was sufficient to show that the deposit was in favour of the Secretary, election Commission. Subsequent to that decision by this Court, there has also been a decision by the Supreme Court in kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar, 1958 SCJ 680: (AIR 1958 SC 687) where the Supreme Court held as follows :

"what is of the essence of the provision contained in Section 117 is that the petitioner should furnish security for the cost of the petition, and should enclose along with the petition a government Treasury receipt showing that a deposit of Rs. 1,000/-has been made by him either in a Government Treasury or in the Reserve Bank of India, is at the disposal of the Election commission to be utilised by it in the manner authorised by law and is under its control and payable on a proper application being made in that behalf to the Election Commission or to any person duly authorised by it to receive the same, be he the Secretary to the Election Commission or any one else. If, therefore, it can be shown by evidence led before the Election Tribunal that the Government treasury receipt or the Chalan which was obtained by the petitioner and enclosed by him along with his petition presented to the Election Commission was such that the Election Commission could on a necessary application in that behalf be in a position to realise the said sum of rupees one thousand for payment of the costs to the successful party it would be sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 117. No such literal compliance with the items of Section 117 is at all necessary as is contended for on behalf of the appellant before us. "

Prima facie, these two decisions would show that the order of the Election Tribunal dismissing the election petition in the present case was incorrect because the correct head of account was entered in the Government Treasury receipt which was attached to the election petition. Mr. Fathak, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1, Dr. Balkrishna Vishunath Keskar, has however urged that decision of this Court in Bhuvnesh Bhushan Shannas case 1958 Al