Security for costs in election petitions: valid deposit satisfies the statute even if the receipt is in another name.

Security for costs under Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 must be deposited when an election petition is presented, but the procedural manner of deposit and the name appearing on the receipt or challan are governed by High Court rules and are directory rather than mandatory. A complete failure to deposit security is fatal, but an actual deposit made with a procedural irregularity does not by itself defeat maintainability. Where the evidence shows that the prescribed amount was in fact deposited, the petition is not liable to dismissal merely because the receipt stood in another name.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with the requirement of security for costs under Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 rendered the election petition liable to dismissal under Section 86(1).

Analysis: The requirement of depositing Rs. 2,000 as security for costs at the time of presenting an election petition is mandatory, but the manner of deposit and the person through whom the deposit is made are governed by the High Court rules and are not mandatory in the same sense. Earlier decisions distinguish between complete non-deposit, which is fatal, and a deposit that is in fact made but with irregularity in the mode or name in which it is reflected. On the facts found, the Election Petitioner had deposited the amount, and the evidence did not support the contention that there was no valid deposit merely because the receipt stood in another name.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with Section 117 was not established, and the election petition was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The deposit of security for costs under Section 117 must be made at filing, but the procedural mode of deposit is directory; a valid deposit by the Election Petitioner satisfies the statute even if the receipt or challan is not in the petitioner's own name.

---