The compliance with Rule 19(2) of the Election Petition Rules, requiring the deposit of security for the cost of the revision at the time of presentation, is mandatory and failure to comply leads to dismissal of the petition.

J.K. Maheshwari, J.:-

Assailing the order dated 29-1-2014 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Harda in Election Petition No. 34/2011 declaring the election of the applicant as Councilor from Ward No. 12 of V.V. Giri Ward, Harda, as null and void this petition has been filed under Section 26(2) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "the Act"). Non-applicant No. 1 by filing I.A. No. 5147/2014 on 20-3-2014 has raised the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition due to non-compliance of Rule 19(2) of M.P. Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "Election Petition Rules"). It is said that as per the requirement of Rule 19(2), the applicant has not deposited a sum of Rs. 250/- as security for the cost of the revision with the High Court "at the time of presentation" of the petition. However, as per the consequence specified therein, the election petition ought to be dismissed in limine.

2. Learned Counsel, Shri Imtiyaz Hussain representing non-applicant No. 1 referring Rule 19(2) urged with vehemence that applicant at the time of presentation of the revision petition under Section 26(2) of the Act challenging the decision of the Judge has not deposited the sum of Rs. 250/- as security for the cost. Due to non-compliance of the same, this petition ought to be dismissed. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Nandkishore Bhatt and others, AIR 1973 SC 2464 and Aeltemesh Rein Vs. Chandulal Chandrakar and others, AIR 1981 SC 1199. Reliance has also been placed to the judgment of this Court in the case of Radheshyam s/o. Nandlalji Patidar Vs. Jagdish s/o. Gangaram Patidar, AIR 1995 MP 272. Lastly, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Aslant Beg Mirdha Vs. Babulal and others, 1997 (2) JLJ 154, wherein Rule 19(2) has been interpreted and its compliance is held mandatory and non-deposit of the security alongwith revision was found fatal. It is held by this Court that High Court does not have any discretion to condone the said lapse. In context of the said argument, it is urged that this petition may be dismissed due to non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of the Rules.

3. In counter to the argument of the non-applicant No. 1, learned Senior counsel, Shri V.S. Shroti contends that the requirement of Rule 19(2) of the Election Petition Rules is mandatory, which has been complied immediately after presentation of this revision by the applicant depositing the amount of security for the cost of the revision. However, the purposive interpretation of Rule 19(2) ought to be done by the Court. In such circumstances, the objection raised by the non-applicant No. 1 may be dismissed. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Karunanidhi Vs. H.V. Handa and others, AIR 1983 SC 558. Reliance has further been placed on another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of D. Saibaba Vs. Bar Council of India and another, (2003) 6 SCC 186, and said that interpretation of statute where literal construction or plain meaning may cause hardship, futility, absurdity or uncertainty the Court may prefer purposive or contextual construction to arrive at a more just, reasonable and sensible result. Further, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahadev Govind Gharge and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka, (2011) 6 SCC 321, in the context that in procedural law the purpose and interpretation is always intended to facilitate process of achieving ends of justice besides expeditious disposal of cases and Courts normally favour interpretation, which would achieve said object. It is further said that the provisions of the procedural law, which have no penal consequence in default of their compliance and even clo