Security deposit at presentation is mandatory; subsequent deposit cannot cure a defective election petition.

The Applicant (Respondent No. 1 in the main petition) was declared the returned candidate for the Mahim Constituency in the 15th Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections on November 23, 2024

The Petitioner (Respondent No. 1 in the application) challenged the election, alleging that the Applicant failed to disclose four criminal matters in his Form 26 Affidavit, constituting a "corrupt practice" under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ("R.P. Act")

The Applicant moved an Interim Application under Section 86 of the R.P. Act read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("CPC") seeking dismissal of the petition

The Applicant contended that the petition was not presented personally, the security deposit was made late and by an advocate rather than the petitioner, and the petition lacked material facts regarding how the non-disclosure materially affected the election result

The Court applied Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act, which mandates the dismissal of any petition that fails to comply with Sections 81, 82, or 117

Section 117(1) requires the petitioner to deposit security for costs "at the time of presenting" the petition

The Court relied on Sitaram v. Radhye Shyam Vishnav, which established that failure to deposit security at the moment of presentation is an incurable defect

Furthermore, under Section 83, an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts; the Court cited Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haque Laskar to affirm that the omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action justifies summary dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC

Finally, per Ashok v. Dr. Gurumukh Mehrumal Jagwani, statutory provisions of the R.P. Act prevail over High Court Rules

The Court found that while the petition was presented on January 4, 2025, the security deposit was only made on January 6, 2025, following a Registry objection

The Petitioner’s reliance on Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules to justify the delay (due to a weekend and cash deposit timings) was rejected, as the Court held that Section 117(1) makes the deposit a contemporaneous condition for valid presentation that cannot be supplanted by procedural rules

Additionally, the Court observed that the Petitioner admitted the deposit was made after presentation and did not deny that it was deposited by an advocate rather than the Petitioner personally

Regarding the merits of the pleadings, the Court determined that the petition was bereft of material facts because it failed to aver: (i) the "heinous" nature of the undisclosed cases; (ii) how the non-disclosure constituted "undue influence" under Section 123(2); and (iii) how the result was "materially affected"

Given that the Applicant had already disclosed twenty other criminal cases, the Court held that the mere non-disclosure of minor offences, without specific pleadings on materiality and intent, did not disclose a triable cause of action

It held that the failure to deposit security for costs at the time of presentation is a mandatory, incurable defect under Section 117, necessitating dismissal under Section 86(1)

Furthermore, the petition was held liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for failing to plead essential material facts required to challenge an election result under Section 100 of the R.P. Act

No order was made as to costs