IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8258 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.32593 of 2016)
LALLI PATEL Appellant(s)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
1. Leave granted.
2. Whether deposit of security along with the presentation of
an election petition is to be made by way of payment before the
Specified Officer or whether it is sufficient to deposit the amount
in the name of the Specified Officer in the Bank, is the question
arising for consideration in this case.
3. The appellant filed an election petition under Section 122 of
the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj
Adhiniyam, 1993 before the Specified Officer/Presiding Officer,
4. The contesting respondent filed an application under Rule
11 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt
Practices and Disqualification for Members) Rules, 1995 stating
that the election petition was not maintainable since the
appellant has not made the security deposit of Rs.500/- as
prescribed under Rule 7 of the 1995 Rules.
5. Rule 7 of the 1995 Rules reads as follows:
“Rule 7. Deposit of Security: At the time of presentation of
an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit with the
specified officer a sum of Rs.500/- as security. Where
the election 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
6. It is the case of the contesting respondent and the State
that the deposit has to be made with the Specified Officer and not
elsewhere. The appellant made a treasury deposit and produced
the receipt before the Specified Officer. Learned Single Judge
and the Division Bench of the High Court in the intra-Court
appeal have taken a stand that the treasury deposit is not a
payment in terms of Rule 7 and that the deposit is to be made by
way of payment before the Specified Officer.
7. We are afraid that the stand taken by the High Court cannot
be appreciated. The requirement of Rule 7 is ‘deposit of security’
and not ‘payment of security’ in cash before the Specified Officer.
What is relevant and mandatory is the deposit of security in the
name of Specified Officer, and the mode or manner of deposit is
8. It is not in dispute that the appellant has made a deposit of
Rs.1000/- as per the Challan dated 30.03.2015. As to ‘On What
Account’ the deposit was made, the Challan specifies it to have
been made “towards Election Petition” (pquko ;kfpdk ckcr). Head of
Revenue (0070) is also indicated in the Treasury Challan.
Significantly, even if payment is made to the Specified Officer, he
has to deposit the money in the treasury through the Bank. It is
the proof of such treasury deposit in the bank of the officer that
is presented along with the election petition. That is an
absolutely permissible mode of deposit.
9. There is no dispute that the money deposited in the bank
was deposited in the name of the prescribed authority. In this
context, we may also refer to a decision by the coordinate
Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Tika Ram
v. Darshanlal, 1988(I) M.P. Weekly Notes 192, wherein the Court
“… 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.”
10. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed. The
impugned judgment of the High Court dated 10.02.2016 in Writ
Appeal No.914 of 2015 is set-aside. The order dated 11.09.2015
passed by the Presiding Officer, Collector, Rewa in Case No.08-A89/MAIN/14-15
is restored accordingly.
The Specified Officer is directed to dispose of the Election
Petition expeditiously taking note of the fact that the prescribed
period of six months has expired a long back.
11. There will be no order as to costs.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)
August 14, 2018