V. Bhargava, J.
1. Girdhar Gopal has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing a decision of the Election Tribunal dated 9th September, 1957 by which an election petition, filed by the present petitioner under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended up to dale, was dismissed by the Election Tribunal under Section 90 (3) of the Representation of the People Act.
2. When the petitioner presented the election petition to the Election Commission, the petition was accompanied by a treasury receipt showing that a deposit of Rs. 1,000/- had been made by the petitioner in the treasury. The head of account in which the amount was deposited was
'Central (Civil) Section
P--Deposits not bearing interest (c)--Other deposit Accounts, Other Deposits (Civil) --
Deposits for election petitions-'
In the column for the name and address on whose behalf the money was paid the entry was of the name of Girdhar Gopal with the further description that he was a candidate for membership of Legislative Assembly, Etah Assembly Constituency No, 122. In the fourth column, the amount deposited is shown as Rs. 1,000/-, and in the third column, where full particulars of the remittance of and of authority if any, have to be given, the entry was 'Deposits for election petition Constituency No. 122 Etah.' In view of these entries in the treasury receipt, the Election Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act had not been complied with in two respects. According to the Election Tribunal, one non-compliance was that the receipt did not show that the deposit was made in favour of the Secretary of the Election Commission. The second non-compliance found by the Election Tribunal was that the receipt did not show that the deposit was as security for costs of the petition. Holding that in these two respects the receipt did not comply with the requirements of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, the Tribunal dismissed the petition under Section 90 (3) of that Act.
3. It has been urged before us on behalf of the petitioner that the decision of the Tribunal, that the receipt did not comply with the requirements of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act, was not correct On each point it was urged that the receipt contained sufficient entries to show full compliance with the provisions of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act
4. So far as the first defect relied on by the Election Tribunal is concerned, it is not necessary for us to discuss it in detail in this case, as that point has already been fully considered and decided by this Court in Sri Bhuvanesh Bhushan Sharma v. Sri Hakim Haziz, W. P. No. 2603 of 1957 : (AIR 1958 All 587) (A), decided by us on 16th January, 1958. It was held in that case that the entry in column 5 giving the correct description of the head was sufficient to show that the deposit was in favour of the Secretary of the Election Commission. The dismissal of the petition on this ground was, therefore, incorrect
5. In view of our earlier decision on the first point, the arguments in the present petition have been confined almost entirely to the second point. It has been urged by learned counsel for the opposite party, Ganga Prasad, who is the returned candidate, that the receipt nowhere mentions that the deposit was as security for costs of the petition, and consequently the receipt, which was filed by the petitioner with his election petition, did not satisfy the requirements of Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act. As we have held in the case, cited above, the word used in Section 117 is 'showing' and not 'stating', so that the requirement of Section 117 is that the receipt should show that the deposit was as security for costs of the petition. It need not necessarily state this fact in so many words. Of course, one way of showing that the deposit was as security for costs of the election petition was to state it in plain language in the receipt itself. But even if it is not so plainly stated, the other contents of the receipt may be such as to show, without any doubt, that the deposit was as security for costs of the petition. It was in this light that we proceed to examine the contents of the receipt.
6. The receipt, in column 5, contains the correct description of the head of account, which was prescribed by the Government for making deposits in connection with the elections. It appears from the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, that deposits in connection with election petitions can arise under five different provisions of law. Firstly, security for costs of an election petition has to be deposited by an election petitioner under Section 117 of the Act. Secondly, security for costs of a notice of recrimination under Sub-section (1) of Section 97 has to be filed by a returned candidate or any other party who intends to give evidence to prove that the election, of any other candidate other than the person giving notice would have been void if he had been the returned candidate and a petition had been presented calling in question his election.
He has also to give the security referred to in Section 117 of the Act. Thirdly, further security for costs has to be deposited by a petitioner under Section 118 of the Act, whenever the Tribunal may call upon him to give such further security, and this type of further security can also be demanded from any person who is required to furnish security under Section 97 of the nature referred to in Section 117 of the Act. Fourthly, security has to be deposited by any person under the orders of the Tribunal before be can become entitled to join as a respondent under Sub-section (4) of Section 90 of the Act. Finally, security for costs of the appeal has to be deposited by any person, who prefers an appeal under Chapter IV of the Representation of the People Act, and that security has also to be deposited in the treasury. It appears that the head of account in which the present deposit was made by the petitioner covers deposits of all these five types.
We gave on opportunity to learned counsel for the parties to point out to us the nature of any other deposit which may have to be made by any person under any other provision of law and which would be credited in the treasury under this very head of account. Learned Counsel had to concede that apart from the five types of deposits mentioned by us above, no other type of deposit can be credited under this head. Such being the position it necessarily follows that whenever a receipt shows that a deposit has been made under such a head, the deposit must be one of the five types, mentioned above. The entry in column 5 of the present receipt therefore by itself shows that the deposit which was made by the present petitioner was of one of the five types, mentioned above by us.
7. The question which further has to be examined is whether the other entries in the receipt are such as to leave no doubt at all that this particular deposit was a deposit by an election petitioner under Section 117 of the Act, as security for costs of the petition and not a deposit of any of the other four types. For this purpose there are three entries in the receipt which are of significance. Firstly there is the entry of the name and address of the person on whose behalf, money is paid. The name is that of the present petitioner Girdhar Gopal with the description that he was a candidate for N. L. A. Etah Assembly Constituency No. 122. This entry by itself of course does not show that Girdhar Gopal was the person filing the election petition but it is to be noticed that Section 117 of the Act, does not require that the receipt itself should show that the depositor is the election petitioner. What Section 117 lays down is that the petitioner is to enclose with the petition a Government Treasury receipt showing that, that particular deposit has been made by 'him'.
This language of Section 117 of the Act, shows that all that is required in the receipt is the name of the depositor, and then that receipt is to accompany the election petition in which the name of the petitioner must be the same as the name of the depositor. In the receipt in the present case, the name of the depositor was Girdhar Gopal and the same was the name of the petitioner in the election petition with which the receipt was sent to the Election Commission. Consequently, the entry in column 2 of the receipt showed that this deposit had been made by a person who was presenting the election petition and who was thus the election petitioner. Secondly, there is column 4 which shows the amount deposited. That amount is Rs. 1000/-, which is identical with the amount prescribed by Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act.
Of course, this identity of the amount of deposit is not a very strong circumstance because even a person making a deposit under Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act, would be required to deposit the same amount, and further there may be cases where the Tribunal under Section 118 or Section 119 of the Act may also ask for deposits of the same amount. The fact, however, that the amount is the same as prescribed by Section 117 of the Act at least shows that this receipt contains at least one of the particulars which it is required to contain under Section 117 of the Act. The most significant entry is in column 3 where the particular of the remittance is given as 'Deposits for Election Petition Constituency No. 122 Etah'. This entry taken together with the circumstance that the receipt shows that the deposit is by the person filing the election petition, in our opinion clearly excludes the possibility of the deposit being under Sections 97, 118, 119 or 119-A of the Act, and consequently the deposit has to be held to be one under Section 117 of the Act.
8. As we have already held above, the very fact, that the deposit was made under the particular head mentioned in column 5, shows that the deposit was in favour of the Secretary of the Election Commission and was as security for costs. The only question that remains is whether any one, looking at this receipt, could hold that it was a deposit as security for costs under a provision other than that prescribed by Section 117 of the Act. If the deposit had been under Section 119-A of the Act, it would have been necessary for the receipt to contain some entry indicating that the deposit was as security for costs of an appeal. The present receipt nowhere uses the word 'appeal.' On the other hand, in column 3, the words are 'deposit for election petition,'
A deposit for election petition clearly cannot be a deposit as security for costs of the appeal. Similarly, under Section 119 a respondent has to give such security as the Election Tribunal may direct. The particulars of the remittance in such a case would require the depositor to mention that the deposit was being made under the directions of the Tribunal and to exclude any such words as would show that the deposit was for the election petition. A deposit for an election petition would not be a deposit by a respondent. A deposit under Section 118 would also require a mention that the deposit was being made under the orders of the Tribunal, and the full particulars of the remittance must include a mention that it was a deposit of further security.
In the same way, a deposit under Section 97 of the Act would require the depositor to mention that the deposit was in respect of notice issued by him under that provision of law and he would also be a respondent. All these particulars, which would be necessary in the case of such deposits, are missing in this particular receipt. Not only does this circumstance show that this deposit could not be a deposit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 97, 118, 119 or 119-A of the Act, but there is the additional factor that columns 2 and 3 read together make it manifest that the deposit is by an election petitioner and is for an election petition. A deposit by a person, who is presenting an election petition, which is specifically mentioned as a deposit for the election petition, can only be the deposit required by Section 117 of the Representation of the People Act.
It cannot be a deposit under the other four sections of the Act mentioned above. These entries in the receipt thus by themselves show without any doubt that this deposit was made by an election petitioner for his election petition & was a deposit as security for costs of the petition so that the receipt must be held to comply with the requirements of Section 117 of the Act. Even this non-compliance relied upon by the Election Tribunal was, therefore, incorrect and the order dismissing the election petition under Sub-section (3) of Section 90 of the Act is liable to be set aside.
9. We consequently allow this petition and quash the order of the Tribunal dated 9th September, 1957. The result is that the election petition shall now be treated as again pending and shall be decided by the Election Tribunal in accordance with law.
10. In the circumstances of this case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs of this petition.