The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur held that a revision petition cannot be dismissed for non-compliance of Rule 19(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipality (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 if the statutory security deposit is made simultaneously with the presentation of the petition.
Justice Deepak Khot observed that while Rule 19(2) mandates depositing ₹250 as security at the time of presentation, such requirement stands satisfied when the deposit and the filing occur on the same day as part of the filing process. The Court noted that the petitioner’s receipt of deposit was included in the petition papers and verified by the scrutiny assistant, thus amounting to sufficient compliance with the rule.
Rejecting the respondent’s objection seeking dismissal for non-compliance, the Court emphasized that the “mode or manner of deposit” is immaterial so long as the deposit is made on behalf of the petitioner during the filing process. Reliance was placed on Lalli Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018) 17 SCC 486 and Rabindra Kumar Upadhyay v. Sub-Divisional Officer, 2025 (1) MPLJ 419, which clarified that procedural compliance is to be viewed substantively, not hyper-technically.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition affirming that the petitioner had duly complied with Rule 19(2).
Appearances:
Shri Prakash Upadhyay, Senior Advocate with Joyveer Singh Saini: Advocates for petitioner.
Shri Ravish Chandra Advocate with Himanshu Tiwari – Advocate for the respondents.
Advocate for the respondents. Shri Suyash Mohan Guru – Advocate for the respondent on caveat.
