2018 (3) TMI 1961 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Election petition rejected for non-compliance with rules. Treasury challan deposit mandatory.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and affirming that the election petition should be rejected due to ... Interpretation of statute - Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009 - Rejection of application preferred Under Order VII Rule 11(d) and (e) read with Order XIV Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - rejection of the election petition on the foundation that there had been non-compliance of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009 - HELD THAT:- The discussion can be categorized into three compartments. First, the deposit is mandatory and the mode of deposit is directory; second, the non-deposit will entail dismissal and irregular deposit is curable and third, in other areas like verification, signature of parties, service of copy, etc., the principle of substantial compliance or the doctrine of curability will apply. In the case at hand, Rule 3(5)(d) commands that the election petition shall be accompanied by the treasury challan. The word used in the Rule is 'accompanied' and the term 'accompany' means to co-exist or go along. There cannot be a separation or segregation. The election petition has to be accompanied by the treasury challan and with the treasury challan, as has been understood by this Court, there has to be a deposit in the treasury. The election petition has to be accompanied by the treasury challan and with the treasury challan, as has been understood by this Court, there has to be a deposit in the treasury. The 2012 Rules, when understood appropriately, also convey that there has to be deposit in the treasury. The deposit of treasury challan which means deposit of the requisite amount in treasury at the time of presentation of the election petition is mandatory. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that no valid election petition was presented. In such a situation, the learned Additional District Judge was bound in law to reject the election petition. The order passed by the High Court that has affirmed the order of the Additional District Judge as a result of which the election petition shall stand rejected - Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Justification of High Court's dismissal of the writ petition.2. Compliance with Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009.3. Interpretation of the mandatory nature of the rules regarding treasury challan deposit.4. Application of principles of substantial compliance and curability.Detailed Analysis:1. Justification of High Court's Dismissal of the Writ Petition:The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition that affirmed the Election Tribunal's order. The High Court had dismissed the petition on the grounds that the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC was not maintainable. The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court's rationale and found it lacking in addressing the mandatory nature of the provisions under the 2009 Rules.2. Compliance with Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009:The core issue was the non-compliance with Rule 3(5)(d) of the 2009 Rules, which mandates that an election petition must be accompanied by a treasury challan of Rs. 1,000. The Election Tribunal had allowed the petitioner to deposit the amount after filing the petition, which was contested by the appellant. The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Rule 3(5)(d) and Rule 7(3), which obligates the Judge to dismiss an election petition that does not comply with these rules.3. Interpretation of the Mandatory Nature of the Rules Regarding Treasury Challan Deposit:The Supreme Court delved into the interpretation of the 2009 Rules, particularly focusing on whether the requirement to accompany the election petition with a treasury challan was mandatory. The Court referred to several precedents, including Charan Lal Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt and Ors., which underscored the mandatory nature of similar provisions under the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Court concluded that the deposit of Rs. 1,000 at the time of presenting the election petition was indeed mandatory, and failure to comply necessitated dismissal of the petition.4. Application of Principles of Substantial Compliance and Curability:The respondent argued for the application of the principles of substantial compliance and curability, suggesting that the subsequent deposit of the amount should suffice. However, the Supreme Court distinguished between curable defects (such as issues with verification or affidavit) and non-compliance with mandatory provisions. The Court held that the mandatory requirement of depositing the treasury challan at the time of filing the petition could not be relaxed or cured subsequently.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and affirming that the election petition should be rejected due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the 2009 Rules. The Court underscored that the deposit of the treasury challan at the time of filing the petition was essential and non-negotiable, thereby reinforcing the strict adherence to statutory requirements in election disputes.