CHARAN LAL SAHU versus NANDKISHORE BHATT & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 294 · Decided: 01-08-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

294 
CHARAN LAL SAHU 
t, 
NANDKISHORE BHATI & ORS. 
August 1, 1973 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND S. N. DWIVEDI, JJ,] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 111-Failure to depostt 
security at tim~ of presentarioti of election petition-Election petition dism;ssed-
He/d, Provisions of S. 117 are mandatory. 
The respondents \Vere elected as members of the Legislative 
Council 
of 
Madhya Pradesh in the t:lections held in 1972. The appellant presented an elec· 
tion petition on June 26, 1972 but did not deposit Rs. 2000/- security as required 
under s. 117 of the Act. The High Court dismissed the election petition holding 
that it was mandatory for the petitioner when filing an election petition to depo· 
sit the amount of Rs. 2000 /- under s. 117 of the Act and there is no provision 
under which a discretion was conferred on the H[gh Court to reduce the amount 
of security deposit as prayed for by him. 
On appeal, by special leave, to this 
Court, the appell<int conrended that: (i) the petition could only 
be 
dismissed 
after the trial commePced and the trial commences only after notices are issued 
to the resporidents; and (fr) the provisions of s. 117 of the Act are directory and 
not mandatory in character. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (i} The reference tll trfal in section 86 is in a larger sense and deal<:: 
with the steps 1n a trial rather than in a narrower sense of a trial commencing 
after the notice of the petition is directed to be served on the respondent. The 
marginal note of s. ·86 namely, "Trial of election petitions'' does not indicate that 
under s. 86 ( 1) an election petition cannot be dismissed for non-compliance with 
the provisions set out therein, unless notice is issued to the respondent. 
The 
language of s. 86(1) is clear as to admit of no other meaning, and the marginal 
no!e cannot be read to control that power. [2988-D] 
(2) The provisions of s. 117 of the Act are mandatory in character. The 
High Court is not competent to reduce the amount of security deposit or to dis~ 
pense with it. The non-deposit of the security along with the election petition 
leaves no option to the court but to reject it. 
The right conferred to challenge 
an election being a statutory right, the terms of that statute have to be complied 
with. [296C, D-El 
K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kun.ju Tli,,var and Others, [1959] S.C.R. 583 and 
Lalaram v. The Supreme Court of llldia and Ors. A.LR. 
1967 S.C. 847, 
.distinguished. 
N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituence and Others 
[19521 S.C.R. 218, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 1972. 
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act 
from the judgment and order dated September 22, 
1972 of the 
Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Election Petition No. 49 
of 1972. 
Pramodh Swarup, for the appellant. 
G. N. Dikshit and R. N. Dikshit, for respondents Nos. 1 & 5. 
S. K. Gambhir, for respondent No. 4 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.-This appeal is against an order of the 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh by which the election petition filed 
by the appellant was dismissed for failure to deposit the security as 
required under s. 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
C. L. SAHU v. N. K. BHATT (laganmohan Reddy, !.) 
295 
hereinafter called 'the Act'. 
The facts in brief are, that for the elec-
tions held in 1972 respondents 1 to 5 were elected as members of 
Legi~lative c.ouncil of Madhya Pradesh. . The appella~t presented a~ 
elecllon pet11ton on June 26, 1972, but did not deposit Rs. 2000i-
security as required under s. 117 of the Act, which inter alia provides 
as follows : 
"117. Security for costs.-(1) At the time of presenting 
an election petition, the petitioner shall depesit in the High 
Court in accordance with the rules of the High Court a sum 
of two thousand rupees as security for the costs of the peti-
tion. 
(2) During the course of the trial of an election peti-
tion, the High Court may, at any time, call upon the peti· 
tioner to give sach further security for costs as it may direct." 
It was contended before the High Court by the petitioner/appellant 
that the trial had not started; that s. 117 of the Act is only directory 
and not mandatory and that the deposit of Rs. 2000/- is only to secure 
the costs in the course of the trial of the election petition, as such dis-
missal of the petition

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.