Security deposit under Rule 7 must accompany an election petition; subsequent deposit cannot cure non-compliance.

The election for Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pathariya Vaman, District Sagar, was held on 01.07.2022. Respondent No. 4 was initially declared elected by one vote.

The appellant filed an Election Petition under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, on 01.08.2022, challenging the election.

The election authority subsequently directed recounting of votes at one polling booth and, after consolidation, declared the appellant elected by a margin of two votes.

Respondent No. 4 challenged those orders before the Single Judge on the ground that the appellant had not deposited the mandatory security amount under Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, at the time of presenting the Election Petition.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders of recount and declaration of result.

The appellant preferred the present writ appeal.

Whether an Election Petition under Section 122 of the 1993 Adhiniyam is maintainable when the security deposit prescribed by Rule 7 of the 1995 Rules was not made at the time of its presentation.

Whether subsequent deposit of the security amount can cure the initial non-compliance with Rule 7.

Whether the election authority’s consideration of the petition on merits, including framing issues, recording evidence and directing recounting, could cure the initial defect in maintainability.

Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 provides that an election may be questioned only through an Election Petition presented in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period.

Rule 7 of the 1995 Rules mandates that the petitioner deposit Rs. 500 as security “at the time of presentation” of the Election Petition; Rule 8 requires dismissal where Rule 7 has not been complied with, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

The Court applied Sarla Tripathi v. Smt. Kaushilya, 2004 (2) JLJ 263, and Babulal Kaliram v. State of M.P., 1985 MPLJ 411, holding that the Rule 7 security deposit is mandatory and cannot be cured by subsequent deposit.

The Court distinguished Akabarkha v. Prithviraj, 2017 (4) MPLJ 576, and Baijula v. Additional Collector, 2009 MPLJ 548, as cases concerning defects in attestation and supply of true copies, rather than the substantive security requirement under Rule 7.

The principles in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, (2008) 17 SCC 491, and Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735, concerning relief or decisions on grounds not pleaded, do not override a mandatory statutory condition of maintainability.

Rule 7 expressly required the security amount to be deposited contemporaneously with presentation of the Election Petition.

The Court found that the petition was presented on 01.08.2022, while the relevant deposit was not made at that time; the later deposit, including the court-fee deposit referred to in the record, did not establish compliance with the distinct security requirement under Rule 7.

Because Rule 8 uses mandatory language requiring dismissal for non-compliance, the omission was not a mere procedural irregularity and could not be excused on grounds of inadvertence, bona fides or subsequent rectification.

The election authority’s subsequent proceedings—including framing issues, recording evidence and ordering recounting—could not confer jurisdiction where the petition was not validly maintainable from inception.

The opportunity of hearing contemplated by the proviso to Rule 8 satisfied the applicable natural-justice requirement and did not permit waiver of the statutory deposit.

A subsequent deposit cannot retrospectively validate the petition.

The writ appeal was dismissed, and the Single Judge’s order dated 08.01.2025 setting aside the recount order dated 30.09.2022 and the consequential declaration dated 11.10.2022 was affirmed.

The Court also imposed personal costs of Rs. 5,000 on the counsel for Respondent No. 4 for repeated interruptions during the hearing, payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Jabalpur, within four weeks.