http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: AELTEMESH REIN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHANDULAL CHANDRAKAR & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/03/1981

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR 1199            1981 SCR  (3) 142  1981 SCC  (2) 689        1981 SCALE  (3)487  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1983 SC 558  (26)

ACT:      Representation of  the People Act, 1951-Sections 86 and 117  whether   ultravires   of   Article   329(b)   of   the Constitution.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant  was a  candidate for Election to the Lok Sabha in  the General  Elections. Respondent  1 was declared the  successful  candidate.  The  appellant  filed  Election Petition under  Section 81  of  the  Representation  of  the People Act,  1951. The  appellant expressly  stated  in  his Election Petition  that security  amount of  Rs. 2,000/- was being deposited  along with  the  petition  as  required  by section 117  of the  Act but,  in fact,  no such deposit was made.  The  High  Court  dismissed  the  petition  for  non- compliance with  the provisions of section 117. On Appeal to this Court, the appellant argued that sections 86 and 117 of the Representation  of the  People Act, 1951 are ultra vires Article 329(b)  of the Constitution and, therefore, the High Court was  in error  in dismissing the election petition for non-compliance of section 117.      Dismissing the appeal, the Court ^      HELD: (1)  The  Constitution  by  Article  329(b),  has conferred authority on the appropriate legislature to pass a law providing  for  the  authority  to  which  the  election petition may  be presented  and the  manner of providing it. The provision  of law  which  prescribes  that  an  election petition shall  be accompanied  by the  payment of  security amount pertains  to the  area covered  by the  manner of the making of  the election  petition and  is, therefore, within the authority of the Parliament. [143 G-H]      (2) The  question as to what is the consequence of non- compliance with  section 117  of the Act has been settled by the decision  of this  Court in  Charan  Lal  Sahu  v.  Nand Kishore Bhatt and Others [1974] 1 S.C.R. 294. [144 A]      (3) The High Court was right in dismissing the election petition summarily in view of section 86(1) of the Act. [144 C]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 931 of 1980.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  25.3.1980  of  the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. 3/80.      Aeltemesh Rein Appellant in person. 143      G.N. Rao and C.L. Sahu for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHANDRACHUD, C. J. The appellant, Aeltemesh Rein, was a candidate for  election to  the  Lok  Sabha  from  the  Durg Parliamentary Constituency  in the General Elections held in January  1980.  Respondent  I  having  been  declared  as  a successful  candidate   in  the   aforesaid  election,   the petitioner filed  an election  petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh  under s.  81 of  the Representation  of  the People Act, 1951 (’The Act’). The appellant stated expressly in his  election petition  that the  security amount  of Rs. 2,000/- was  being deposited  along  with  the  petition  as required by  s. 117 of the Act but, in fact, no such deposit was made.  The High  Court dismissed  the petition  for non- compliance with  the provisions  of s.  117 and  hence  this appeal.      It is  urged by  the appellant  who appeared  in person before us  that sections 86 and 117 of the Representation of the People  Act, 1951  are ultra vires Article 329(b) of the Constitution and,  therefore, the High Court was in error in dismissing the  election petition  for the  reason that  the provisions of  s.117 were  not  complied  with.  We  see  no substance  in   this  contention.   Article  329(b)  of  the Constitution provides,  in  so  far  as  material,  that  no election to  either House  of Parliament  shall be called in question except  by an  election petition "presented to such authority and  in such  manner as  may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature". It is in pursuance of  this provision that the Parliament provided by s. 117 of the Act that at the time of presenting an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit in the High Court, in accordance with  the rules  of the  High Court, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as  security for the costs of the respondent. We are unable to  accept the  petitioner’s argument  that the words "in such  manner" which  occur in Article 329(b) are limited in  their   operation  to  procedural  and  not  substantive requirements. The Constitution, by the aforesaid clause, has conferred authority on the appropriate legislature to pass a law providing  for  the  authority  to  which  the  election petition may  be presented  and the  manner of providing it. The provision  of law  which  prescribes  that  an  election petition shall  be accompanied  by the  payment of  security amount pertains  to the  area covered  by the  manner of the making of  the election  petition and  is, therefore, within the authority of the Parliament. 144      The only  question which  survives is as to what is the consequence of  non-compliance with  s. 117 of the Act. That question has  been settled  by the decision of this court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Nand Kishore Bhatt and Ors.(1) wherein it was held  that the High Court has no option but to reject an election petition which is not accompanied by the payment of security amount  as provided  in s.  117 of the Act. Section 86(1) of  the Act provides that the High Court shall dismiss an  election   petition  which  does  not  comply  with  the provisions of  Sections 81,  82 or  117. In that view of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

matter, the  High Court was right in dismissing the election petition summarily.      The appellant  contended that  he  could  not  pay  the deposit because he was bugled on way to the Court. This plea is as irrelevant as it seems untrue.      Accordingly, we  uphold the  Judgment of the High Court and dismiss this appeal. There will be no order as to costs. N.K.A.                                     Appeal dismissed. 145