M.Y. GHORPADE versus SHLVAJI RAO M. POAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 99 · Decided: 04-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

M.Y. GHORPADE 
A 
V. 
SHlVAJI RAO M. PqAL AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 
[G.B. PATTANAlK, DORAISWAMY RAJU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Election Laws: Representation of People Act, 1951; Sections 81, 86 and 
117: Election Petition-Section I 17-Security of cost of petition-Deposit of 
amount by person other than Election Petitioner-Challenge of-Held, since C 
cost of petition has been deposited, it could be considered as compliance of 
provisions of Section 117-Thus Election Petitions maintainable. 
In connection with the maintainability of Election Petition, the 
question that arose for consideration in this appeal was whether the deposit 
of the amount by a person other than the Election Petitioner as security D 
for the costs of the petition, could be treated as compliance of Section 117 
of the Representation of People Act. 
Answering the question in the affirmative and dismissing the appeal, 
the Court 
HELD: I.I Provision of Section 117 of the Representation of People 
Act requires deposit of Rs. 2,000/- as security for the cost has to be made 
E 
at the time of presenting an Election Petition. The object of having the 
aforesaid provision could be to discourage entertaining frivolous Election 
Petitions and to make provision for cost in favour of the parties who 
ultimately succeed in the Election Petition. Sub-section (2) of Section 117 F 
authorises the High Court to call upon an Election Petitioner during the 
course of the trial of an Election Petition, to give such further security 
which may be necessary, depending upon the facts and circumstances of 
the case. It would, therefore, be apparent that the requirement of making 
a security deposit of Rs. 2,000 is mandatory and the same hi.s to be made G 
while presenting an Election Petition, but the mode of deposit as well as 
the person who could make a deposit has to be complied with in 
accordance with the rules of the High Court in question and, as such has 
been held to be directory in several decisions of this Court. 
1102-F, G, H; 103-Al 
99 
H 
100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. In the instant case, sin,ce the evidence of the Election Petitioner 
as well as the evidence of Respondent No.5 unequivocally point out that 
it is the Election Petitioner who deposited the requisite amount, there is 
no infirmity with the conclusion of the High Court that there has been 
compliance of Section 117 of the Act and consequently the Election Petition 
B has been rightly held to be maintainable and could not have been dismissed 
under Section 86 on the ground of non-compliance of Section 117 of the 
Act. 1105-A, Bl 
c 
D 
E 
F 
M. Karunanidhi etc. v. H. V. Hande and Ors. etc., 119831 2 SCR 629 
and K. Kamraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar and Ors., I 19591 SCR 583, relied on 
Charan Lal Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt and Ors., 11974) 1 SCR, 294 
and Aeltmesh Rein v. Chandula/ and Ors., !198113 SCR 142, distinguished. 
Rajendra Singh and Ors. etc. v. Smt. Usha Rani and Ors. etc., 119841 
3 SCR 22, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1734 of 
2001. 
-From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2000 of the Karnataka 
High Court in l.R. No. of 2000. 
S.S. Javali, N.N. Rao. N. Reddy and H.D. Amaranathan, for the 
Appellant. 
Balaji Srinivasan, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PA TTANAIK, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 
28.11.2000 of the Kamataka High Court passed in an Interlocutory Application 
No. 31 of 1999. The appellant was declared elected to the Kamataka Legislative 
Assembly from 35-Sandur Assembly Constituency in the Election held during 
G September 1999. Respondent No. 5, Heroji Lad had also contested the said 
election and had secured the second highest number of votes. Shivaji Rao 
Poal, who was the Election Agent of said respondent no. 5, filed the Election 
Petition under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act. 1951 
(hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') challenging the election of the appellant 
on various grounds including the ground of commission of corrupt .practice. 
H In accordance with the prescribed procedure. the appellant on being served 
.. 
• 
... 
M.Y. GI-IORPADE v. SHIVA.Tl RAO M. POAL (PATTANAIK. J.] 
] OJ 
with the notice of the Election Petition, appeared before the High Court and A 
filed an application for dismissal of the Election Petition under Section 86 of 
the Act on the ground that there has been non-compliance of Section 117 of 
the Act. The

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