The timing of the security deposit for election petitions is valid if made prior to presentation, and personal presence is confirmed by procedural record, not by signature requirement.

ORDER

1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.2.2024 passed by Sub Divisional Officer cum Specified Officer, Sub- Division Neemuch, respondent No.13, whereby he has dismissed an application filed by him under Rule 3, 5, 7 and 8 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995.

2. The facts in brief are that petitioner and respondents No.1 to 3 were the contestants for the post of Sarpanch for Panchayat Election in village Dhaneriya Kala, District Neemuch. The petitioner was the successful candidate. Respondent No.1 thereafter preferred an election petition before respondent No.13 alleging corrupt practices against the petitioner and prayed for setting aside of his election. Upon service of notice upon him the petitioner filed an application under section 3, 5, 7 and 8 of the Rules, 1995 before respondent No.13 raising objection as regards maintainability of the election petition for want of compliance of mandatory provisions of rules 3 and 7 of the said rules. The application was contested by respondent No.1. By the impugned order the application has been rejected against which this petition has been preferred.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Rules on part of respondent No.1. The security deposit was required to be made by him along with the election petition. The same has however not been done. The said deposit had already been made on 17.7.2023 whereas the election petition was presented on 5.9.2023. Such deposit of security amount cannot be said to be compliance of rule 7 of the rules. It is further submitted that the election petition was not presented by respondent No.1 in person which is also a mandatory requirement entailing dismissal of the petition at the threshold. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the decision of this Court in Sarla Tripathi v. Kaushilya Devi and others [2001 MPLJ Online 1].

4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.

5. The provisions as regards election petition under M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 are contained in section 122 which reads as under:

"122. Election petition - (1) An election [x x x] under this Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner :- (i) in case of [Panchayat or Gram Sabha] to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue);

(ii) in case of Janpad Panchayat to the Collector; and (iii) in case of Zila Panchayat to the Divisional Commissioner and not otherwise.

(2) No such petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the election [x x x] in question was notified. (3) Such petition shall be enquired into or disposed of according to such procedures as may be prescribed."

6. The relevant rules of Rules, 1995 for the purpose of this petition are rules, 3, 7 and 8 which are as under:

"3. Presentation of election petition -(l) All election Petition shall be presented. to the specified Officer during the office hours by the person making the petition, or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition.

(2) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies. thereof as there are respondents mentioned. in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.

7. Deposit of securi