In Brief
Sitaram challenged his defeat in a municipal chairperson election. The opponent filed an election petition without depositing the mandatory security amount upfront; the deposit was made later after seeking court permission. The Supreme Court held that Rule 3(5)(d) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009 mandatorily requires the treasury challan (security deposit) to accompany the election petition at the time of filing. The word 'accompanied' means simultaneous co-existence, not subsequent deposit. While the mode of deposit is directory, the deposit itself at the time of presentation is mandatory. The petition filed without the concurrent deposit was invalid and had to be rejected under Rule 7(3), which mandates dismissal of non-compliant petitions. Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.