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;