AELTEMESH REINversusCHANDULAL CHANDRAKAR & OTHERS

      142

A                                 AEL TEMESH REIN
                                               v.
                   CHANDULAL CHANDRAKAR & OTHERS

                                  March 10, 1981
B
                    (Y. V. CHANDRACHUD C.J., AND A.P., SEN, J.)

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

             The appellant was a candidate for Election to the Lok Sabha in the General
      Elections. Respondent 1 was declared the successful candidate. The appellant
c     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
    · Respresentation of the People Act, 1951 are ultra vires Article 329(b) of the Cons-
D     titution 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 : (I) The Constitution by Article 329(b), has conferred authority
     on the appropriate legislature to pass a law providing for the authority to which
E    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
F    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 CJ

G            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.
H
             Aeltemesh Rein Appellant in person.
         AELTEMESH REIN v. CHANDULAL (Chandrachud, CJ.)               143

      G.N. Rao and C.L. Sahu for the Respondents.                             A
      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. Res-
                                                                              B
pondent 1 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
                                                                              c
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,           D
  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 provid-
. es, in so far as material, that no election to either House of Parliament
  shall be called in question except by an election petition "presented       E
   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          F
 costs of the resp:mdent. We are unable to accept the peti-
  tioner'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 author.ity on the appropriate
  legislature to pass a law providing for the authority to which the
                                                                              G
  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
                                                                              H
   and is, therefore, within the authority of the Parliament.
    144                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS        (1981] 3 S.C.k

A          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
B   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 .
    matter, the High Court was right in dismissing the election petition
     summarily.                                     ·

c        The appellant contended that he could not pay the deposit
    because he was burgled on way to the Court. - This plea is as irrele-
    vant 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.
D
    N.K.A.                                             Appeal dismissed.




                                                                            )-




          (1) [1974] 1 S.C.R. 294.