LexSHRI CHANDRIKA PRASAD TRIPATHI versus SHRI SIV PRASAD CHANPURIA & OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 527 SHRI CHANDRIKA PRASAD TRIPATHI v. SHRI SIV PRASAD CHANPURIA & OTHERS. (B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. W ANCHOO, J J.) Election Petition-Security deposit-Dismissal bf petition by Election Tribunal for defect in deposit-Appeal to Hir,h Court, if competent-Representation of the People Act, I95I (43 of I95I), ss. 90(3), 98, II6-A and IIJ. Respondent I filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant. The security required to be deposited under s. n7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was made in the following terms : "Security deposits for Election Petition of Bargi Assembly Constituency No. 97, Distt. Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. Refund- able by order of the Election Commission of India, New Delhi." Before the Election Tribunal the appellant made an applica- tion alleging that there was non-compliance with the provisions s. n7 inasmuch as (i) the deposit was not in favour of the Secre- tary to the Election Commission, and (ii) the amount was only refundable to the depositor and would not be payable to appellant in case the petition was dismissed under s. 90(3). The Tribunal upheld the objections and dismissed the petition under s. 90(3). R~spondent l preferred an appeal under s. n6-A of the Act to the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal and sent back the petition for trial. The appellant contended that no appeal lay to the High Court and that there was non-compliance with the provisions of s. n7. Held, that, an appeal lay to the High Court under s. n6-A of the Act against the dismissal of the election petition under s. 90(3) by the Tribunal. The order passed by the TribuBal under s. 90(3) was an order passed at the, conclusion of the trial of the petition and was in substance and in law one under s. 98. Once an election petition was entrusted to the Tribunal the trial started and any order passed by the Tribunal which concluded the trial was an order at the conclusiop of the trial. Harish Chandra Bajpai .v. Tirloki Singh, [r957] S.C.R. 370, referred to. Gulsher Ahmad v. Election Tribunal, A.LR. r958 Madh. Pra. 224, approved. · Held, further that, there had been substantial compliance with the provisions of s. n7 of the Act. Section n7 was not tp be strictly or technically construed and a substantial compliance with its requirements was sufficient. The security in this case r959 April 9. 528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. x959 had been made in respect of the election petition in question and it had been credited towards the accounts of the Election Com- Shri Chandrika mission. The use of the words "refundab]e" would not prevent I)rasad Tripatlii the Election Commission from making an order of payment' of the v. amount to the successful party. Shri Siv Prnsad Kamraj Nadar v. Kitnju Thevar, A.LR. [1958] S.C. 687, Chanpuria applied. & Othus CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 343 of 1958. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 8, 1958, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No. 141 of 1957, arising out of the judgment and order dated December 5, 1957, of the Election Tribunal, Jabalpur, in Election Petition Case No. 1 of 1957. G. O .. Mathur, for the appellant. P. Rama Reddy and R. Mahali'f!gier, for respondent No. 1. 1959. April 9. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendr.agadkar ]. GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal by special leave arises out of an election petition filed by respondent 1 (No. 320 of 1957) before the Election Commission, Ne:w Delhi, in which he pra.yed that the appellant's election to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Bargi constituency should_be declared to be void and that it should be further declared that he had himself been duly elected from the said constituency. The polling for the election in question was taken on March 9, 1957, and the result was declared on March 12, 1957. Of the three candidates who had stood for election, the appellant secured 9308 votes, respondent 1, 8019 votes and the third ca.ndidate, respondent 2, 3210 votes. The petition filed by respondent 1 was entrusted to the Election Tribunal, J abalpur, for trial. On October 12, 1957, the appellant filed before the Election Tribu- nal, an objection under s. 90, sub-s. (3) of the Repre- sentation of the people Act, 1951 (hereinafter called tbe Act),
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.