Judgment

A. P. SEN, J. :- These appeals by special leave and the connected special leave petitions from the judgments and orders of the High Court of Madras raise the same question and therefore they are disposed of by this common judgment. In Civil Appeal No. 38 (NCE) of 1981, there is a further question involved.

2. The facts are more or less similar in all these appeals, except that in Civil Appeal No. 38 (NCE) of 1981 there are certain additional facts. It will suffice for our purposes to set out the facts giving rise to that appeal.

3. At the last general election to the State Legislature Assembly of Tamil Nadu from the Anna Nagar Assembly Constituency No. 8 held in May 1980, the appellant, M. Karunanidhi, leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party, contested as a candidate of that party and secured 51290 votes. As against this, the respondent Dr. H. V Hande sponsored as a candidate by the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam secured 50591 votes. On June 1, 1980 the appellant, M. Karunanidhi, was consequently declared elected by a margin of 699 votes. The last date for filing an election petition to challenge his election was July 16, 1980. On July 14, 1980 the respondent, Dr. H. V. Hande, filed an election petition under S. 81 read with S. 100 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the election of the appellant on various grounds. The election petition was accompanied by a pre-receipted challan prepared by the Accounts Department of the High Court on the basis of a lodgment schedule initialled by the Assistant Registrar II, High Court, showing that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- had been credited on July 11, 1980, to the account of the Registrar, High Court, Madras, in the Reserve Bank of India, Madras, as security for costs along with the lodgment schedule signed by the Assistant Registrar II.

4. The respondent pleaded, inter alia, in paragraph 18 of the petition that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice under sub-section (6) of Section 123 of the Act by incurring or authorising expenditure in contravention of Section 77. It was alleged that he had failed to disclose certain items of expenditure in his statement of election expenses filed by him in connection with the election as detailed in sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) of paragraph 18 of the petition. The allegation in paragraph 18 (b) related to an expenditure of about Rs. 50,000/- in erecting fancy banners throughout the constituency and it was alleged that there were such fancy banners about 50 in number, the cost of each banner being not less than Rs. 1,000/-. It was averred in paragraph 18 (b) that a photograph of one such banner was filed along with the petition. Admittedly, though the respondent had filed with the election petition a photograph of one such banner, a copy of the photograph was not annexed to the copy of the petition furnished to the appellant.

5. On October 30, 1980 the appellant filed his written statement. He pleaded, inter alia, that the election petition was liable to be dismissed in limine under sub-sec. (1) of Section 86 due to non-compliance with the requirements of sub-section (1) of Section 117 of the Act read with Rule 8 of the Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Rules, 1967, for the reason that there was no deposit of Rs. 2,000/- in cash in the High Court as security for costs, and also for non-compliance with the requirements of sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act as the copy of the election petition served on the appellant was not accompanied by a copy of the photograph of the alleged fancy banner annexed to the petition, as alleged in paragraph 18 (b) of the petition. The appellant accordingly raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the election petition.

6. The High Court by its order dated December 1, 1980, overruled both the preliminary objections. In regard to the objection based on sub-sec. (1) of Section 117 of the Act read w