Harnam Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68039
1 WA-152-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
rd
ON THE 3 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 152 of 2025
HARNAM SINGH RAJPUT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Shrivastava - Advocate for appellant.
Shri B.D. Singh, Additional Advocate General for the State.
Shri Brajesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
ORDER
Per: Pradeep Mittal, J.
This Writ Appeal, filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed
against the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P. No. 23482/2022, whereby the writ petition preferred by Respondent
No. 4 was allowed and the orders dated 30.09.2022 and 11.10.2022 passed
by Respondent No. 2, the competent election authority, were set aside. The
learned Single Judge held that the Election Petition preferred by the appellant
could not have been entertained in the absence of compliance with the
mandatory requirement of security deposit prescribed under Rule 7 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 07-09-2026
11:46:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68039
2 WA-152-2025
Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and

Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter “the Rules of
1995”).
2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the election to the post of
Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Pathariya Vaman, Tahsil Malthone, District
Sagar, was held on 01.07.2022, in which the appellant and Respondent No. 4
were the contesting candidates at three polling booths. In the original
counting, Respondent No. 4 was declared elected by a margin of one vote
and an election certificate was issued in his favour. Aggrieved thereby, the
appellant presented an Election Petition under Section 122 of the Madhya
Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter
“the Adhiniyam of 1993”) before Respondent No. 2 on 01.08.2022, and the
requisite court fee was deposited on 01.09.2022. After affording opportunity
to the parties to file pleadings, lead evidence and cross examine witnesses,
Respondent No. 2 allowed the Election Petition vide order dated 30.09.2022
and directed recounting of the votes polled at Polling Booth No. 37, having
regard, inter alia, to the circumstance of a power failure during the original
counting. Upon recounting, the appellant secured 126 votes and Respondent
No. 4 secured 132 votes at the said booth, as against 125 and 134 votes
respectively in the original count and upon consolidation of the votes polled
at all three polling booths, the appellant was found to have secured 414 votes
against 412 votes secured by Respondent No. 4. Consequently, Respondent
No. 2, vide order dated 11.10.2022, declared the appellant as the returned
candidate.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 07-09-2026
11:46:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68039
3 WA-152-2025
3. Respondent No. 4 assailed the orders dated 30.09.2022 and

11.10.2022 in W.P. No. 23482/2022, contending that the Election Petition
was not maintainable for non deposit of the mandatory security amount at
the time of its presentation, as required under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1995.
The learned Single Judge, relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this
Court in Sarla Tripathi v. Smt. Kaushilya, 2004 (2) JLJ 263 , held that the
security amount is required to be deposited along with the Election Petition
at the time of its presentation, and that subsequent deposit does not constitute
compliance with Rule 7. On that finding, the orders dated 30.09.2022 and
11.10.2022 were set aside by the impugned order dated 08.01.2025.
4. The principal question which arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether the Election Petition presented on 01.08.2022 could be
validly entertained when the statutory requirement relating to security
deposit under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1995 was not complied with at the time
of its presentation, and whether the subsequent deposit made by the appellant
could cure such non compliance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single
Judge erred in interfering with the orders passed by the election authority. It
is contended that the ground of non deposit of security was neither
specifically pleaded nor raised by Respondent No. 4 before Respondent No.
2, and the appellant was consequently not afforded an effective opportunity
to meet or rebut the same that the omission was bona fide and inadvertent
and was subsequently rectified, that Respondent No. 2 had specifically
considered and rejected the said objection on the ground that an Election
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 07-09-2026
11:46:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68039
4 WA-152-2025
Petition ought not to be dismissed merely on technical or procedural grounds

and that the Election Petition was in any event adjudicated after due
opportunity to the parties, with the recounting ultimately establishing the
appellant's majority. It is further submitted that a court ought not to decide a
matter on a ground which was neither pleaded nor put in issue without
affording the affected party an opportunity to address the same, as
recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima
Mandal & Others, (2008) 17 SCC 491, and Bhagwati Prasad v.
Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 submits that an
Election Petition is a creature of statute and can be maintained only upon
strict compliance with the conditions prescribed by the Adhiniyam of 1993
and the Rules of 1995 framed thereunder. It is submitted that Rule 7
specifically requires deposit of security at the time of presentation of the
Election Petition, and Rule 8 mandates dismissal of the petition on non
compliance therewith, that subsequent compliance cannot validate a petition
which was not maintainable on the date of its presentation and that this
requirement has been held to be mandatory by this Court in Sarla Tripathi
(supra) as also in Babulal Kaliram & Another v. State of M.P. & Others,
1985 MPLJ 411. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 4 had
specifically raised the objection regarding non deposit of security before
Respondent No. 2, and that despite the said objection, the Election Petition
was proceeded with contrary to the mandatory provisions of Rules 7 and 8
and that the plea of bona fide or inadvertent omission is untenable since the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 07-09-2026
11:46:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68039
5 WA-152-2025
statutory requirement was required to be complied with at the time of

presentation and could not be cured by subsequent deposit, nor treated as a
mere technical or curable irregularity.
7. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to notice
the relevant statutory provisions. Section 122 of the Adhiniyam of 1993
provides as under:
“122. Election how to be questioned. (1) An election under this Act shall be
called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner : (i)
in case of Panchayat or Gram Sabha, to the Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue); (ii) in case of Janpad Panchayat, to the Collector; and (iii) in case
of Zila Panchayat, to the Divisional Commissioner, and not otherwise. (2)
No such petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within thirty days
from the date on which the election in question was notified.”
Rule 7 of the Rules of 1995, framed under the Adhiniyam of 1993,
reads as under:

“Rule 7 – Deposit of Security. At the time of presentation of an
election petition, the petitioner shall deposit with the Specified
Officer an amount 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 candidate.”
Rule 8 of the Rules of 1995 further provides:
“Rule 8. Procedure on receiving petition. If the provisions of Rule
3 or Rule 4 or Rule 7 have not been complied with, the petition
shall be dismissed by the specified officer: Provided that the
petition shall not be dismissed under this rule without giving the
petitioner an opportunity of being heard.”
8. A conjoint reading of Section 122 of the Adhiniyam of 1993 with
Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules of 1995 makes it evident that an Election Petition
is a special statutory remedy, maintainable only in the manner and subject to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 07-09-2026
11:46:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68039
6 WA-152-2025
the conditions prescribed by the Adhiniyam and the Rules framed

thereunder, and not otherwise. Rule 7 expressly requires the deposit of
security “at the time of presentation” of the Election Petition, and Rule 8
provides that in case of non compliance the petition “shall be dismissed.”
The proviso to Rule 8 safeguards the principle of audi alteram partem by
requiring an opportunity of hearing before dismissal, but it neither dispenses
with the mandatory requirement of deposit nor confers any power upon the
specified officer to waive or condone the same.
9. This Court has had occasion to consider the nature of the
requirement under Rule 7 in Sarla Tripathi v. Smt. Kaushilya, 2004 (2) JLJ
263, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that the requirement under
Rule 7 regarding deposit of the prescribed security amount at the time of
presentation of the Election Petition is mandatory, and that such defect
cannot be cured by making the deposit subsequently. The said view has been
reiterated in Babulal Kaliram & Another v. State of M.P. & Others, 1985
MPLJ 411.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the
judgments of this Court reported in Akabarkha v. Prithviraj, 2017 (4) MPLJ
576, and Baijula v. Additional Collector, 2009 MPLJ 548, wherein the issue
related to the election petitioner not signing the election petition, the true
copy thereof, and the additional copy supplied to the respondent as being
true copies, thereby alleging non compliance with Rules 3(2), 7 and 8 of the
Rules of 1995, and in which this Court held that such non compliance was
not mandatory in nature. Having considered the said judgments, this Court is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 07-09-2026
11:46:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68039
7 WA-152-2025
of the considered opinion that they are not applicable to the facts of the

present case, as the issue involved therein was entirely different namely,
defects of attestation and supply of true copies and not the substantive
deposit of security prescribed under Rule 7. The present case stands on a
different footing altogether, both on facts and in law, inasmuch as it concerns
the primary jurisdictional condition for maintainability of the Election
Petition itself. The judgment of this Court in Sarla Tripathi (supra) is
squarely applicable to the present case, and this Court respectfully follows
the same.
11. It is not in dispute that the Election Petition was presented by the
appellant on 01.08.2022, whereas the court fee was deposited only on
01.09.2022, that is, subsequently a position which, as held in Sarla Tripathi
(supra), does not amount to compliance with Rule 7. In this connection, it is
also necessary to distinguish between court fee and security deposit, court
fee is payable under the provision governing institution of the proceeding,
whereas security deposit under Rule 7 is a distinct and independent statutory
requirement. The deposit of court fee on 01.09.2022 cannot, therefore, by
itself establish compliance with Rule 7, and nothing on record shows that the
security amount of Rs. 500/- required under Rule 7 was deposited with the
specified officer at the time of presentation of the Election Petition on
01.08.2022.
12. Thus, the language of Rule 7 clearly mandates that the prescribed
security amount must be deposited at the time of presentation of the Election
Petition, and failure to comply with this mandatory requirement cannot be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 07-09-2026
11:46:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68039
8 WA-152-2025
treated as a mere technical defect, nor can it be cured by a subsequent

deposit. The submission that the omission was bona fide or inadvertent, or
that it was subsequently rectified, does not advance the appellant's case, for
the statutory requirement admits of no relaxation on the ground of hardship,
inadvertence or negligence. Where a statute prescribes that a condition is to
be fulfilled at the time of presentation of the petition, it is not open to the
Court to read the provision as permitting compliance at any subsequent point
of time, for that would render the words “at the time of presentation” wholly
otiose.
13. As regards the contention founded on Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima
Mandal & Others, (2008) 17 SCC 491, and Bhagwati Prasad v.
Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735, this Court is unable to accede to the
submission that the impugned order suffers from any violation of natural
justice. The principle in the said decisions, that a court ought not to grant
relief or non suit a party on a ground neither pleaded nor put in issue without
opportunity, operates in the realm of pleadings and reliefs inter se the
contesting parties, it cannot be extended to dispense with a mandatory
statutory condition of maintainability which goes to the very jurisdiction of
the authority to entertain the Election Petition. The proviso to Rule 8 of the
Rules of 1995 itself contemplates an opportunity of hearing before dismissal
for non compliance with Rule 7, and it is not the appellant's case that no such
opportunity was, in fact, available before Respondent No. 2 or before the
learned Single Judge. The plea of natural justice, therefore, does not assist
the appellant in overcoming the bar of non compliance with Rule 7.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 07-09-2026
11:46:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68039
9 WA-152-2025
14. Nor can the fact that Respondent No. 2 proceeded to frame

issues, record evidence, or direct recounting, cure the initial infirmity. The
power of the election authority to enquire into an Election Petition is a power
conferred by, and exercisable subject to, the Adhiniyam of 1993 and the
Rules of 1995, it cannot override the mandate of Rules 7 and 8. The exercise
of that power presupposes a validly presented petition, and jurisdiction
cannot be conferred upon the authority by consent, acquiescence, or by its
own erroneous order proceeding to entertain a petition that was not
maintainable at its inception.
15. In view of the foregoing, the finding recorded by Respondent
No. 2 that the Election Petition ought not to be dismissed merely on a
technical or procedural ground cannot be sustained, since non compliance
with Rule 7 is not a mere technical or curable irregularity but a mandatory
pre-condition for maintainability of the Election Petition. Consequently, the
subsequent proceedings, including the order dated 30.09.2022 directing
recounting and the consequential order dated 11.10.2022 declaring the
appellant as the returned candidate, could not cure the initial non-compliance
with Rule 7, and were rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge.
16. Having held that the Election Petition itself was not maintainable
for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Rule 7, this Court
does not consider it necessary to enter into the merits of the recounting or the
correctness of the vote tally arrived at thereunder, the same having become
academic in view of the finding on maintainability.
17. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 07-09-2026
11:46:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68039
10 WA-152-2025
that an Election Petition must comply with the statutory requirement of

security deposit under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1995 at the time of its
presentation, and that subsequent deposit cannot retrospectively validate a
petition which was not maintainable on the date of its presentation. The order
dated 08.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.
23482/2022 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting
interference in appellate jurisdiction.
18. Accordingly, and for the reasons recorded above, this Writ
Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The order dated 08.01.2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 23482/2022 is affirmed. This Court
further records its disapproval of the conduct of learned counsel for
Respondent No. 4, who repeatedly interrupted the Court and interjected
while learned counsel for the appellant was being heard. He was repeatedly
cautioned by the Court during the course of the hearing to desist from such
conduct, yet he persisted in interrupting and did not relent despite the said
caution. Such conduct is not conducive to the orderly and dignified conduct
of proceedings before this Court. Accordingly, costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand only) are imposed on learned counsel for Respondent No. 4
personally, to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee,
Jabalpur, within a period of four weeks from today.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
MSP

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANVENDRA
SINGH PARIHAR
Signing time: 07-09-2026
11:46:34