Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri S.P. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikrant Pandey and Shailendra Awasthi learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 2.2.2007 passed by the learned District Judge dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner and the order dated 4.1.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the application filed by the petitioner dated 9.11.2006 for dismissing the Election Petition.

3. The respondent No. 2 Hari Om filed an Election Petition under Section 12(c) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 challenging the election of the petitioner dated 28.8.2005 for the office of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Mohanipur, Tahsil Sardhana, District Meerut. Written statement was filed by the writ petitioner, the petitioner moved an application dated 9.11.2006 praying that the issue No. 2 i.e. whether the Election Petition is maintainable? be decided before deciding the other issues. The averments in the application were that in paragraph 20 it has been pleaded that the amount of security is not deposited in the account in accordance with the rules nor any receipt has been produced by the election petitioner hence the Election Petition be rejected. The said objection was replied by the petitioner. It was stated by the election petitioner that treasury challan of Rs. 100/- of security deposit has been submitted alongwith the Election petition and the said issue be decided alongwith the other issues and the application dated 9.1.2006 be rejected. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application and observed that it is a technical flaw and due to which the Election Petition need not be dismissed. A revision was filed by the petitioner against the order of the Prescribed Authority which has been dismissed holding that the revision is not maintainable. The revisional Court held that the order of the Prescribed Authority was only as interlocutory order refusing to decide the issue as preliminary issue. The writ petition has been filed challenging the said order.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that there was non-compliance of Rule 3 (1) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 since the election petitioner did not deposit the security amount in the personal ledger account of the Gram Panchayat hence the Election Petition deserves to be rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed copy of Challan Form as Annexure-1 to the Supplementary affidavit. He contended that the amount was deposited in Account No. 8448 which was account of “Other funds”. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the deposit not being in the personal ledger account of the Gram Panchayat, the Election Petition was liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on two judgments of this Court namely, 1986 RJ 106, Ramesh Chandra Tewari v. Vth Additional District Judge, Basti and others, and 1997 (88) RD 380, Yashwant Singh Yadav v. Prescribed Authority and another.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondents refuting the submissions of Counsel for the petitioner contended that the security amount was deposited by treasury challan and the amount was mentioned as security for the Election Petition of village Mohinipur in the Treasury. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the deposit being there, the petition cannot be dismissed as there being substantial compliance. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgment of the apex Court reported in (2002) 3 SCC 130, Shaik Saidulu Alias Saida v. Chukka Yesu Ratnam and others, for the proposition that the remedy provided under a statute cannot be defeated under the cloak of technicalities by adopting a hyper-technical approach.

6. I have considered the submissions of Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. This writ petition raises an issue regar