In Brief
Sitaram challenged a municipal election decision by filing an appeal against the High Court's dismissal of his petition arguing that his opponent's election petition was defective. The key issue was whether an election petition filed without a treasury challan deposit at the time of presentation, later cured by subsequent deposit, should be rejected. The Supreme Court held that the deposit of the requisite amount in treasury at the time of presentation is mandatory under Rule 3(5)(d) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Election Petition Rules, 2009. The word 'accompanied' means the election petition and treasury challan must co-exist at presentation. Although the mode of deposit is directory, non-deposit at presentation is fatal and cannot be cured. The Court allowed the appeal and directed rejection of the election petition.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.