1987 Supreme(MP) 472

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
T.N. SINGH, RAM MURTI RUSTOGI, JJ.
Tikaram – Appellant
Vs.
Darshanlal – Respondent
M. P. No. 783 of 1987 (G)
Decided on : 16-10-1987

Headnote:(1) Panchayat Act, 1981 (M.P.) – S.117 (2) – election petition filed before the election was notified – not premature.

       (2) Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1962 (M.P.) – R.3 (2) – attested copies of election petition not filed – attested copies may be filed later on.

       (3) Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1962 (M.P.) – R.7 – deposit of Rs. 50/ – made in bank and particulars mentioned in election petition – rule complied with.

        Short Note

       1. Petitioner's case is very ably and forcefully argued by Shri Apte. We propose to deal immediately with his contention to dispose of the matter at the admission stage.

       2. Held: His first contention is based on the violation of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1962. He has drawn our attention to Rules 3, 7 and 8 of the said Rules. On facts the objection to the maintainability of the election – petition is projected in Annexure P – 1 filed before the Election – Officer. We have perused the same. It appears that the copies of the election petition concerned had not been: 'attested" by the petitioner as required by sub – Rule (2) of Rule 3. The attested copies, admittedly, were filed late and those were accepted. In the objection it was also stated that the security deposit contemplated under Rule 7 had been made in the Bank and that was done without obtaining an order from the Election – Officer. We have no doubt that in so far as Rule 8 is concerned that is mandatory inasmuch as it explicitly contemplates dismissal of an election – petition for non – compliance of Rules 3 and 7. However, we are not satisfied that if the election – petitioner incurred any such disqualification in the instant case.

       3. We do not read in Sub – Rule (2) of Rule 3 the requirement that attested copies cannot be filed subsequently. What we read is that copies must accompany the election – petition not that the attestation of such copies, if that is lacking, may not be made subsequently. That has been done in this case by filing subsequently attested copies though with the original application itself, copies (albeit unattested) had been filed in compliance with Sub – Rule (2) of Rule 3. The mandate of the Rule is for' copies accompanying the election – petition. For the lack of attestation to be made up subsequently, no bar is contemplated. In so far as the objection based on infraction of Rule 7 is concerned suffice it to say that the provision require deposit of a sum of Rs.50/ – by the election – petitioner in such manner that the prescribed authority may be able to exercise dominion thereon. It is not complained that the money deposited in the Bank was not deposited in the name of prescribed authority. We do not read anything in the petition to suggest that the deposit was so made that the prescribed authority had no control over the money deposited in the State Bank wherein, admittedly, the particulars of the election – petition were mentioned. The Rule in our opinion does not lay down any inexorable requirement of deposit being made in cash with the prescribed authority as contended by the counsel.

       4. Counsel has also relied on section 117 (2) of the parent Act, namely, M.P. Panchayat Act, 1981. Indeed, the new Act has taken the place of 1962 Act. The provision reads thus – ' No such petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within fifteen days from the date on which the election or co – option in question was notified". Shri Apte's contention is that the election – petition be deemed incompetent but we are not disposed to take that view because it is not the case that the election – petition being filed late, after the election was notified. Sub – section (2) evidently contemplates a rule of limitation and the terminus ad quem is the date of notification of the election. Merely because the election – petition was filed earlier, before the election was notified, it cannot be said the petition was incompetent. Indeed, section 117 (2) does not envisage a condition precedent for the filing of an election – petition so that it can be said in the instant case that the petition was premature being filed before the election was notified.

       Petition dismissed.