Case Law Details
The decisions rendered by the M.P. High Court prior to 1-11-2000 are binding on the Chhattisgarh High Court on the principle of comity.
1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 26 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (here i in after called as ‘the Act of 1961’), the petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 30-7-2016 (hereinafter called as ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Additional District Judge-cum- Election Tribunal, Sakti in Misc. Civil Suit No. 39/2016 by which the petitioner’s election on the post of Councillor from Ward No. 4 of Nagar Panchayat Jaijaipur, has been set aside in an election petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein, on the ground that the order passed by the Election Tribunal is contrary to the facts and law available on record and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
2. When the matter was taken-up for hearing on 26-8-2016, Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/caveator, took a preliminary objection that the petitioner did not deposit the mandatory deposit of Rs.250/- as required under Section 19(2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 (here in after called as ‘the Rules of 1962’) towards security for costs along with the revision petition, as it was filed on 5-8-2016 and when the Registry pointed out the defect of non-payment of mandatory deposit then only, on 11-8- 2016, the mandatory deposit was made and such a deposit cannot be said to be the deposit in compliance of Section 19(2) of the Rules of 1962 and therefore the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. However, thereafter, the petitioner filed application under Section 151 read with Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to file afresh within the period of limitation, in the interest of justice. This Court by order dated 8-9-2016, allowed respondent No. 1 / caveator to file reply to that application and records of the Election Tribunal were also requisitioned and directed the matter to be listed for hearing on preliminary objection of maintainability of the revision as well as on the application under Section 151 read with Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC, but no reply was filed and ultimately, after hearing on the said application and preliminary objection, the matter was heard on maintainability of civil revision as well as on admission and also on interim relief.
3. Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/caveator, would submit that the petitioner was required to deposit Rs.250/- as security for costs of revision petition at the time of presentation of revision petition as mandatorily required by Rule 19(2) of the Rules of 1962 and since the petitioner has failed to deposit the mandatory deposit by depositing and filing at the time of presenting the revision on 5-8-2016, the revision petition cannot be entertained and as such, the preliminary objection be upheld and the revision petition be dismissed on this short ground alone.
4. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the Rules of 1962 have not been specifically adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh and therefore such rule would not be applicable. He would further submit that this Court while considering the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification from Membership) Rules, 1995 which is pari materia to Rule 19(2) of the Rules of 1962 had already held that security deposit may be made within the period of limitation and if cognisance of the election petition has not been taken and security deposit has already been made within the period of limitation, the election petition does not suffer from fatal defect and therefore the default be overruled. The petitioner has also filed an application under Section 151 read with Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC claiming that if the Court is of the view that the decision of the M.P. High Court rendered in the matter of Radheshyam Nandlalji Patidar v. Jagdish Gangaram Patidar and others is applicable, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file afresh within the period of limitation, in the interest of justice.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
