Aslam Beg Mirdha vs Babulal - 1997 Supreme(MP) 206

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1997 Supreme(MP) 206

1997 (2) JLJ .154
S.S. Jha, J.
Aslam Beg Mirdha v. Babulal and others
Civil Revn. No. /028 of /996; against the order of Shri S.L. Jain, District Judge, Guna. passed in Election Petition No. 14 of 1995; Decided on 11.4.1997.

Advocates:
K.K. Lahoti forpetitioner; Sameer Kumar Jain for respondents.

Headnote:(1) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- Ss. 86 and 117 -- security amount not deposited along with election petition -- High Court has no option but to dismiss the election petition. AIR 1973 SC 2464 fol1owed. AIR 1995 MP 272 relied on. [Paras 11 & 15]
       (2) Constitution of India -- Arts. 243ZG (b) and 329 (b) -- challenge to any election to any municipality -- is provided under Art. 243ZG (b) -- which invokes Art. 129 (b) -- right is statutory right -- terms of statute has to be complied with.
       (3) Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 (M.P.) -- R. 19 (2) -M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 -- S. 26 (2) -- revision petition under -- provision under R. 19 (2) is mandatory -- security amount has to be deposited alongwith the revision petition -- High Court has no discretion to condone the lapse.
       (4)Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 26 (2) -- M.P. Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 -- R. 19 (2) -- revision petition under -- provision under R. /9 (2) is mandatory -- security amount has to be deposited alongwith the revision petition -- High Court has no discretion to condone the lapse.
       The revision petition is not maintainable; as the provisions of rule 19 of the Rules are mandatory and not directory. The rule itself provides that amount of security should be deposited at the time of presentation of the petition.
       There is no discretion to condone the delay in presentation of petition or to absolve the petitioner from payment of security for costs, which can only be provided under the Statute governing the election disputes.
       If no discretion is conferred in respect of any of these matters, none can be exercised under any general law or on any principle of equity. AIR 1957 SC 444 distinguished. 1996 JLJ 391 and 1997 (1) JW 89 dissented from. AIR 1981 SC 1199 and AIR 1973 SC 2464 followed. 1985 JLJ 644 and AIR 1995 MP 272 relied on. [Paras 17 & 18]
       ¼1½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 86 rFkk 117 && fuokZpu ;kfpdk ds lkFk izfrHkwfr jde fu{ksfir ugha && mPp U;k;ky; ds ikl fuokZpu ;kfpdk [kkfjt djus ds flok; dksbZ fodYi ugha gSA , vkb vkj 1973 ,l lh 2464 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1995 ,e ih 272 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 11 ,oa 15 À

       ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 243 ;N¼[k½ rFkk 329 ¼[k½ && fdlh uxjikfydk ds fdlh fuokZpu dks vk{ksfir fd;k tkuk vuq- 243 ;N¼[k½ ds v/khu micaf/kr gS && tks vuq- 329 ¼[k½ dk vkJ; ysrh gS && vf/kdkj dkuwuh vf/kdkj gS && dkuwu ds fuca/kuksa dk vuqikyu djuk gksrk gSA ¿ iSjk 14À

       ¼3½ uxj ikfydk ¼fuokZpu vthZ½ fu;e] 1962 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 19¼2½ && e-iz- uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 && /kkjk 26¼2½ && iqujh{k.k vthZ && fu- 19¼2½ ds v/khu mica/k vkKkid gS && iqujh{k.k vthZ ds lkFk izfrHkwfr jde dk fu{ksi fd;k tkuk gksrk gS && mPp U;k;ky; dks xyrh ekQ djus dk foosdkf/kdkj ugha gSA

       ¼4½ uxj ikfydk ¼fuokZpu vthZ½ fu;e] 1962 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 26¼2½ && e-iz- uxjikfydk ¼fuokZpu vthZ½ fu;e] 1962 && fu- 19¼2½ && iqujh{k.k vthZ && fu- 19¼2½ ds v/khu mica/k vkKkid gS && iqujh{k.k vthZ ds lkFk izfrHkwfr jde dk fu{ksi fd;k tkuk gksrk gS && mPp U;k;ky; xyrh ekQ djus dk foosdkf/kdkj ugha gSA

       iqujh{k.k dh vthZ pyk, tkus ;ksX; ugha gS] D;ksafd fu;eksa ds fu;e 19 ds mica/k vkKkid gS] funs‘kkRed ughaA Lo;a fu;e }kjk micaf/kr gS fd vthZ nsrs le; izfrHkwfr dh jde fu{ksfir dh tkuk pkfg,A

       vthZ ds izLrqfr esa gq, foyac dks ekQ djus dk vFkok [kpZ ds fy, izfrHkwfr ds lank; ls vthZnkj dh eqfDr nssus dk dksbZ foosdkf/kdkj ugha gS tksfd fuokZpu fooknksa dks fofu;fer djus okys dkuwuw ds v/khu gh micaf/kr gks ldrk gSA ;fn buesa ls fdlh Hkh fo"k; ds laca/k esa dksbZ foosdkf/kdkj iznÙk ugha gS rc fdlh Hkh lkekU; fof/k ds v/khu vFkok lkE;k ds fdlh fl)kar ij foosdkf/kdkj iz;ksx ugha fd;k tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1957 ,l lh 444 izHksfnrA 1996 ts ,y ts 391 rFkk 1997 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 89 folEerA , vkb vkj 1981 ,l lh 1199 rFkk , vkb vkj 1973 ,l lh 2464 vuqlfjrA 1985 ts ,y ts 644 rFkk , vkb vkj 1995 e-iz- 272 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 17 ,oa 18À

ORDER

1. The order of this revision shall govern the disposal of Civil Revision No. 1029 of 1996 between Farukh and Ramesh Singh & others.

2. This revision is filed under section 26 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Both these revision petitions arise out of the order passed in Election Petition under the Act before the District Judge, Guna, .

3. For filing an election petition rules have been framed, which are known as Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). Rule 19 of the Rules provides for revision. Rule 19 is reproduced below :-

" 19. Revision.-- (1) No petition by way of revision shall lie against any interlocutory order passed by the Judge.

(2) At the time of presentation of the petition for revision under subsection (2) of section 26 against the decision of the Judge, the petitioner shall deposit with the High Court a sum of Rs. 250 as security for the costs of the revision. If the provisions of this rules are not complied with the High Court shall dismiss the petition."

4. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 provides that at the time of presentation of the petition for revision under sub-section (2) of section 26 against the decision of the Judge, the petitioner shall deposit with the High Court a sum of Rs. 250/- as security for the costs of the revision. The rule further provides that on failure to comply with this rule the High Court shall dismiss the petition. In both these revisions, it is an admitted position that the amount of security of Rs. 250/- was not deposited at the time of presentation of petition for revision.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the amount is deposited by them but not at the time of presentation of the petition. The amount of security was deposited after presentation of petition. Civil Revision No. 1028/96 was presented on 29.8.96 and the amount of security was deposited on 2.9.96, whereas in Civil Revision No. 1029/96 the revision petition was presented on 29.8.96 and security amount was deposited on 3.9.96.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has complied with the provision and deposited security amount within time prescribed for filing revision. He submitted that the day he deposited security amount, it was well within the period of limitation for filing revision before the High Court.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that once he has deposited the amount within period of limitation for filing revision, the revision cannot be dismissed on this ground. Counsel for the applicant submitted that in the case of Kailash Narayan v. Namdar and others, 1996 JLJ 391, it is held that if the deficiency is made good within the period of limitation prescribed for the presentation of petition, the petition cannot be dismissed. This judgment relates to Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991. Learned counsel also referred to the judgment of this Court in the matter of Ravi Thakur v. Shiv Shankar Patel and others, 1997 (1) JLJ 89. The aforesaid judgment related to the Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991 and Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam.

8: Learned counsel submitted that the provisions of Rule 19 are pari materia to the provisions of Sec. 86 of Representation People Act, 1951.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that non-payment of security at the time of presentation of the petition is fatal and revision petition cannot be entertained. Learned counsel for the respondents invited attention of the Court to the provisions of section 117 of the Representation of People Act and submitted that on non-compliance of provisions of section 117 of the Representation of People Act the election petition is liable to be dismissed under the provision of section 86 of Representation of People Act, 1951. Sections 86 and

117 of Repre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(MP) 206

1997 (2) JLJ .154S.S. Jha, J.Aslam Beg Mirdha v. Babulal and othersCivil Revn. No. /028 of /996; against the order of Shri S.L. Jain, District Judge, Guna. passed in Election Petition No. 14 of 1995; Decided on 11.4.1997.

Cases Referred (7)

1997 (2) JLJ .154
S.S. Jha, J.
Aslam Beg Mirdha v. Babulal and others
Civil Revn. No. /028 of /996; against the order of Shri S.L. Jain, District Judge, Guna. passed in Election Petition No. 14 of 1995; Decided on 11.4.1997.