Bachawat, J. - (1.) On March 28, 1966 the election of four members to the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) by the members of the Punjab Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) was held, and as a result of the election, respondent No. 1. Raghbir Singh and one Narinder Singh were declared elected. Appellant Ravindra Nath was one of the unsuccessful candidates. On May 10, 1966, the appellant filed an election petition asking for a declaration that the election of respondent No. 1 and Narinder Singh was void and for a further declaration that he be declared duly elected as a member of the Rajya Sabha to one of those seats. On July 1, 1966, the date fixed for the respondents to the petition to appear before the Tribunal and answer the claims made in the petition, respondent No. 1 filed a written statement in reply to the election petition and gave a written notice under the proviso to Section 97 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 of his intention to give evidence to prove that the election of the appellant would have been void if he had been the returned candidate and if a petition had been presented calling in question his election. The notice under Section 97(1) was accompanied by the prescribed statement and particulars and a treasury receipt evidencing the deposit of Rs. 1,000 as security under Section 117 of the Act. An objection was taken on behalf of the appellant that the amount of security deposited by respondent No. I was insufficient and consequently the notice under the proviso to section 97 (1) was invalid. On this objection, the Tribunal raised the following preliminary issue being issue No. 10:"Whether the notice under Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, given and the recrimination statement filed on behalf of respondent No. I are invalid because of the insufficiency if any of the security deposit made by respondent No. 1 within the time allowed, if any -.
(2.) It is now common case that under the law as it stood at the relevant time respondent No. I was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000 as security under Sec. 117 of the Representation of the People Act 1951. On October 7, 1966, the date fixed for argument on the preliminary issues respondent No. 1 deposited a further sum of Rs. 1,000 as security and produced the relevant treasury receipt before the Tribunal. By its order dated October 11, 1966 the Tribunal held that as the production of a receipt showing the deposit of Rs. 2,000 as security along with the notice was the condition precedent to the right of respondent No. I under Section 97 (I) to lead evidence, this right was lost by his omission to file with the notice the treasury receipt showing a deposit of Rs. 2,000 and the subsequent deposit of Rs. 1,000 by him did not entitle him to lead any evidence under Section 97 (1) . The Tribunal answered the preliminary issue accordingly. On or about October 24, 1966 , respondent No. l filed in the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution asking for an order quashing the order of the Election Tribunal dated October 11, 1966 and a direction that respondent No. 1 be allowed to lead evidence under Section 97 (I) . Several preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution were raised before the High Court, but they were subsequently abandoned and counsel for the appellant agreed that the High Court should deal with the order of the Tribunal on the merits. By its order dated December 19, 1966, the High Court held that it is only in cases in which the provisions of Sections 117 and 118 with regard to security of deposit were not complied with before the date fixed for recording evidence under Section 97 (1) that the Tribunal could refuse to admit the evidence and where, as in the present case, the entire amount of the security had been deposited before the date fixed for recording evidence the Tribunal must admit the evidence. On this finding, the High Court allowed the petition under Article 227 and quashed the order of the Election Tribunal dated October 1I, 1966 in so far as it related to issue No. 10. From this order of the High Court the present appeal has been filed by certificate.
(3.) The question in this appeal is what time limit, if any, is prescribed for furnishing the security referred to in the proviso to Section 97 (1) read with Sections 117 and 118 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 as it stood before its amendment by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act 1966. Section 97 is in these terms: "97 (1) . When in an election petition a declaration that any candidate other than the returned candidate has been duly elected is claimed the returned candidate or any other party may give evidence to prove that the election of such candidate would have been void if he had been the returned candidate and a petition had been presented calling in question his election: Provided that the returned candidate or such other party as aforesaid shall not be entitled to give such evidence unless he has, within fourteen days from the date of commencement of the trial, given notice to the Tribunal of his intention to do so and has also given the security and the further security referred to in Sections 117 and 118 respectively. (2) Every notice referred to in sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by the statement and particulars required by Section 83 in the case of an election petition and shall be signed and verified in like manner." The Explanation to sub-section (4) of Section 90 provided that for purposes of that sub-section and of Section 97 the trial of a petition would be deemed to commence on the date fixed for the respondents to appear before the Tribunal to answer the claim or claims made in the petition. Sections 117 and 118 read: "117. The petitioner shall enclose with the petition a Government Treasury receipt showing that a deposit of two thousand rupees has been made by him either in a Government Treasury or in the Reserve Bank of India in favour of the Election Commission as security for the costs of the petition. 118. During the course of the trial of an election petition the Tribunal may at any time call upon the petitioner to give such further security for costs as it may direct and may, if he fails to do so, dismiss the petition." ;