Lalaram vs Laxman Singh - 1996 Supreme(MP) 1238

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: R.D. Jain, S.K. Jain
For the Respondent: H.D. Gupta

Headnote:(1) Interpretation of Statutes – construction of proviso – operation of main provision becomes conditional – provision has to be given the meaning it seeks to convey.
       (2) Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991 (M.P.) – R. 3, 4, 7 and 8 – provisions under R. 3, 4 and 7 – are mandatory – non – compliance of any results in dismissal of election petition as per R.8.
       (3) Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991 (M.P.) – R. 8 proviso, 3, 4, and 7 – proviso to R. 8 – gives opportunity to be heard to show that provisions under R. 3, 4 and 7 have been complied with – if provisions have not been complied with dismissal of petition is only the consequence.
        Short Note
       This order shall dispose of writ petition Nos. 1326/94, 1327/94 and 34/95.
       2. All the petitions involve the common question: Whether Rules 3, 4 and 7 of M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991 (for short the 'Rules') are only directory or are mandatory in nature. And whether the non – compliance thereof would be fatal to an election – petitioner.
       3. The election petitions were filed in June, July and August 1994 when the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 had come into operation, but under section 130, it had the saving clause and, therefore, the Rules of 1991 remained applicable to the instant petitions.
       4. The consequence of non – compliance of the Rules 3, 4 and 7 appears under Rule 8. Rule 3 of the Rules deals with the presentation of election petitions with the required number of attested copies under the signature of the election petitioner himself. Rule 3 may be reproduced with profit:
       "3. Presentation of election petitions. –
       (1) An election petition shall be presented to the prescribed authority during the office hourse by the person making the petition, or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition within thirty days from the date on which the election of co – option in question was notified."
       (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 true copy of the petition.
       5. The Rule 4 deals with the parties who are to be necessarily joined in an election petition. Whereas the requirement under Rule 7 is of the deposit of security amount with the election petition by an election petition. Rule 7 of the Rules reads as under:
       "7. Deposit of security. –
       At the time of representation of an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit with the prescribed authority a sum of rupees two hundred and fifty as security for cost of petition. Where the election of co – option of more than one candidate is called in question, a separate deposit of an equivalent amount shall be required in respect of each such returned candidate."
       6. The consequence of non – compliance of Rules 3 and 7 has been provided under Rule 8. It does not leave any alternative with the Authority but the dismissal of the petition. The reproduction of Rule 8 at this stage is necessary –
       "8. Procedure on receiving petition. –
       If the provisions of Rule 3 or Rule 4 or Rule 7 have not been complied with, the prescribed authority shall dismiss the petition:
       Provided that the petition shall not be dismissed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard."
       7. Much stress has been laid on the proviso of Rule 8 contending that the election petition cannot be dismissed even if there be the non – compliance of the Rules unless the election – petitioner was allowed opportunity of being heard. The contention advanced in support of the plea is that in cases of default either under Rules 3 and 4 or under Rule 7, the prescribed authority was vested with the powers to condone the default after getting it rectified. It is contended that only such construction of the proviso would be in line with the Act and the spirit of the expression, the 'opportunity of being heard'.
       8. The contention advanced may appear to be attractive, but has no merit. The opportunity of being heard envisages the opportunity to an election – petitioner to show to the prescribed authority that in fact, there was no default and the requirements of Rules 3, 4 and 7 were substantially observed.
       9. The construction of the proviso to Rule 8 cannot be made so liberal so as to invest in the Prescribed Authority the power of rectification in case of non – compliance of rules by election – petitioner. If the non – compliance of Rules 3, 4 and 7 is found, after hearing the election – petition, the prescribed authority is left with no choice, but to dismiss the petition. It is a settled rule of interpretation and construction of a proviso that the operation of main provision becomes conditional. The provision has to be given the meaning, it seeks to convey if there is no ambiguity in the language used. The proviso to rule 8 only indicates that before dismissing the petition for the non – compliance of the rules, the authority shall hear the election – petitioner to unable him to satisfy that in fact there was no non – compliance of the rules and that the requirements of the rules was satisfied.
       10. When, the requirements of Rules 3, 4 and 7 were admittedly not observed at the time of filing of the election petition, its dismissal would be the only consequence.
       11. The requirement to deposit the security with the petition was held to be mandatory by Supreme Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt and others, AIR 1973 SC 2464. It was observed that “we are clearly of the view that the non – deposit of security along with the election petition, as required under section 117 of the Act, leaves no option to the Court but to reject it”. Their Lordships had distinguished the earlier decision of the Court in Kamsaja Nadar v. Kanju Thewar and others, AIR 1958 SC 657.
       12. On the foregoing discussion, in the view of this Court, the compliance of Rules 3, 4 and 7 of the Rules is mandatory and not merely directory. The prescribed authority has not been authorised to condone the default. The authority had no option but to dismiss the election petition for the admitted non – compliance of the Rules.
       13. Before parting with the order, the assistance rendered by Shri P.L. Dubey, Senior Advocate, to this Court as amicus curiae, deserves appreciation. In his arguments, he elaborated the issues involved in those matters, which helped the Court.
       14. Ordered accordingly.