1    

Non-Reportable        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8258 OF 2018  (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.32593 of 2016)  

 LALLI PATEL                       Appellant(s)               Versus    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS      Respondent(s)        

J U D G M E N T    KURIAN, J.    1. Leave granted.    2. Whether deposit of security along with the presentation of  

an election petition is to be made by way  of payment before the  

Specified Officer or whether it is sufficient to deposit the amount  

in the name of the Specified Officer in the Bank, is the question  

arising for consideration in this case.  

3. The appellant filed an election petition under Section 122 of  

the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj  

Adhiniyam, 1993 before the Specified Officer/Presiding Officer,  

Collector, Rewa.

2    

4. The contesting respondent filed an application under Rule  

11 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt  

Practices and Disqualification for Members) Rules, 1995 stating  

that the election petition was not maintainable since the  

appellant has not made the security deposit of Rs.500/- as  

prescribed under Rule 7 of the 1995 Rules.    

5. Rule 7 of the 1995 Rules reads as follows:    

“Rule 7. Deposit of Security: At the time of presentation of  an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit with the  specified officer a sum of Rs.500/- as security.  Where  the election of more than one candidate is called in  question, a separate deposit of an equivalent amount  shall be required in respect of each such returned  candidates.”    

6. It is the case of the contesting respondent and the State  

that the deposit has to be made with the Specified Officer and not  

elsewhere. The appellant made a treasury deposit and produced  

the receipt before the Specified Officer.  Learned Single Judge  

and the Division Bench of the High Court in the intra-Court  

appeal have taken a stand that the treasury deposit is not a  

payment in terms of Rule 7 and that the deposit is to be made by  

way of payment before the Specified Officer.  

7. We are afraid that the stand taken by the High Court cannot  

be appreciated. The requirement of Rule 7 is ‘deposit of security’

3    

and not ‘payment of security’ in cash before the Specified Officer.   

What is relevant and mandatory is the deposit of security in the  

name of Specified Officer, and the mode or manner of deposit is  

irrelevant.    

8. It is not in dispute that the appellant has made a deposit of  

Rs.1000/- as per the Challan dated 30.03.2015. As to ‘On What  

Account’ the deposit was made, the Challan specifies it to have  

been made “towards Election Petition” (pquko ;kfpdk ckcr).  Head of  

Revenue (0070) is also indicated in the Treasury Challan.   

Significantly, even if payment is made to the Specified Officer, he  

has to deposit the money in the treasury through the Bank.  It is  

the proof of such treasury deposit in the bank of the officer that  

is presented along with the election petition.  That is an  

absolutely permissible mode of deposit.      

9. There is no dispute that the money deposited in the bank  

was deposited in the name of the prescribed authority. In this  

context, we may also refer to a decision by the coordinate  

Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Tika Ram  

v. Darshanlal, 1988(I) M.P. Weekly Notes 192, wherein the Court  

held thus:  

4    

“… It is not complained that the money deposited in the  Bank was not deposited in the name of prescribed  authority.  We do not read anything in the petition to  suggest that the deposit was so made that the prescribed  authority had no control over the money deposited in the  State Bank wherein, admittedly, the particulars of the  election-petition were mentioned. The Rule in our opinion  does not lay down any inexorable requirement of deposit  being made in cash with the prescribed authority as  contended by the counsel.”  

10. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed.  The  

impugned judgment of the High Court dated 10.02.2016 in Writ  

Appeal No.914 of 2015 is set-aside.  The order dated 11.09.2015  

passed by the Presiding Officer, Collector, Rewa in Case No.08-A-

89/MAIN/14-15 is restored accordingly.    

The Specified Officer is directed to dispose of the Election  

Petition expeditiously taking note of the fact that the prescribed  

period of six months has expired a long back.    

11. There will be no order as to costs.  

   ……………………………., J.                  (KURIAN JOSEPH)  

 ……………………………., J.                           (SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)  

New Delhi;  August 14, 2018