SITARAM versus RADHEY SHYAM VISHNAV & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 601 · Decided: 06-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
601
SITARAM
 v.
RADHEY SHYAM VISHNAV & ORS.
    (Civil Appeal No. 1200 of 2018)
MARCH 06, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009:
rr. 3(5)(d) and 7(3) – Election to the post of Chairperson of
Municipal Corporation – Challenged by filing election petition –
Application seeking rejection of election petition for non-compliance
of r. 3(5)(d) – Application dismissed by Election Tribunal – In writ
petition challenging order of Tribunal, High Court held that the
application was not maintainable – On appeal, held: R.3(5)(d)
mandates that election petition has to be accompanied by the treasury
challan and with the treasury challan, there has to be deposit in the
treasury – R.7(3) mandates dismissal of election petition for
non-compliance of rules – Therefore, the election Tribunal was
bound in law to reject the election petition – Election Laws.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  Rule 3(5) (d) of Rajasthan Municipalities Election
Petition Rules, 2009 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 there has to be a deposit in
the treasury. [Para 37] [625-B-C]
2. There is no rule which prescribes filing of treasury challan
before the Election Tribunal in election petition after seeking
permission at the time of presenting an election petition.
Permission, if any, may be sought earlier.  [Para 37] [625-E]
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 601
   601
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
Gulab Singh v. The Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class and Others 1981 WLN (UC) 78 ; Bajrang Lal  v.
Kanhaiya Lal and Others RLW 2007 (2) Raj 1551 –
relied on.
3. Rule 7 of Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition
Rules, 2009 leaves no option to the Judge but to dismiss the
petition. Thus, regard being had to the language employed in
both the Rules, 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 Election Tribunal was bound
in law to reject the election petition. [Para 38] [625-H; 626-A]
Charan Lal Sahu v. Fakruddin Ali Ahmed and Others
(1975) 4 SCC 832 – followed.
Charan Lal Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt and Others
(1973) 2 SCC 530 ; Aeltemesh Rein v. Chandulal
Chandrakar and others (1981) 2 SCC 689 – relied on.
K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar and Others
[1959] SCR 583 : AIR 1958  SC 687; Chandrika
Prasad Tripathi v. Shiv Prasad Chanpuria and Others
[1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 527 : AIR 1959 SC 827 ;
M. Karunanidhi v. Dr. H.V. Hande and Others (1983) 2
SCC 473 ; Om Prabha Jain v. Gian Chand and  Another
AIR 1959 SC 837 : [1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 516 ;
Budhi Nath Jha v. Manilal Jadav (1960) 22 ELR 86 ;
M.Y. Ghorpade v. Shivaji Rao M. Poal and Others
(2002) 7 SCC 289 ; T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose and Others
(1999) 4 SCC 274 ; Dr. Shipra and Others v. Shanti
Lal Khoiwal and Others (1996) 5 SCC 181 ;
Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh
Rathore and Others AIR 1964  SC 1545 : [1964] 3
SCR 573 ; G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar
(2013) 4 SCC 776 ;  Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar  v. Naresh
Kushali Shigaonkar (2009) 9 SCC 310 – held
inapplicable.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
603
Case Law Reference
(1973) 2 SCC 530
relied on
Para 13
[1959] SCR 583
held inapplicable
Para 14
(1975) 4 SCC 832
followed
Para 16
(1981) 2 SCC 689
relied on
Para 17
[1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 527
held inapplicable
Para 19
(1983) 2 SCC 473
held inapplicable
Para 21
[1959] 2 SCR 516
held inapplicable
Para 23
(1960) 22 ELR  86
held inapplicable
Para 23
(2002) 7 SCC 289
held inapplicable
Para 24
(1999) 4 SCC 274
held inapplicable
Para 26
(1996) 5 SCC 181
held inapplicable
Para 26
[1964] 3 SCR 573
held inapplicable
Para 27
(2013) 4 SCC 776
held inapplicable
Para 28
1981 WLN (UC) 78
relied on
Para 35
(2009) 9 SCC 310
held inapplicable
Para 37
RLW 2007 (2) Raj 1551
relied on
Para 37
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1200
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in S. B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 8238 of 2017.
Mahavir Singh, Sr. Adv.

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