Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
[2[ See relative rule 13. Meena Singh'v. Prescribed Autharitlj.Cur1l- Callectar. 1998 (2) MPW 309. 'Rule 21: Recaunt .ofv.otes.- C.onsideratian.-Mere rejectian .of an applicatian under Rule 80 filed by the petitianer is nat a sufficient ground far .ordering recaunt .of vates. Vidhyawati Lilhare v. Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Of- ficer, Lanji, Balqghat, 2010(1) MPW 115 = 2010(4) MPHT 92 = 201O(2)JW29.. -... --.-- ---- ---.-.... -. Order .of recaunt.-11J An order of recount cannat be passed an mere asking. An issue shauld be framed, evidencebe recarded and the questian shouldbedecidedan goingthrough such an evidence.Secrecyofvates cannat be lightly revealed. Udaysingh v. Himmatsingh, 1999 (1) JLJ 200. [2]Recountofvotes cannat be .orderedeven an consent. Secrecyofvating cannat be braken lightly. Gajanan v. Ramcharan, 1997 (II) MPWN 3. Result materially affected .or nat. same cases.-[lJ Facts sup • .pressed, electi.on declared void.-The.nomination paper of a returned 'ca,ndidate itself i's round fuhave Deen'impr'ii]ierlY-acc'epted_oeeause'the returned candidate suppressed his someassets etc. Held,his result has been .obviouslym'aterially affected'therefore Ills electian praperly 'declared as vaid. Mehbaob Khan v. Lallu Bhai, AIR 2009 (NOe) 532 MP = 2008 (4) MPLJ,198 = 2008(3) JLJ 307 = 2008(5) MPHT 95. , [2JReturned candidate lady suppressed fact ofhaving<J.inechildren and declare 5 children, it would not have caused any disqualification to her, therefore the result of the election is not materially affected and the (PAl176 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAMSWARAJ ADHI., 1993 8.122 the pleadings. The verification at the bottom of the affidavit verifies contents of the affidavit to the extent of name of deponent, residence of the deponent am} filing of the petition. Thus it amounts to non- compliance of the mandatory requirement of Rule 5. Ram Das Singh v. Balran Singh, 2007(2) MPHT 58 (CG). Rule 6: See also comments under S.36. Rule 7: Deposit of security amount is essential.-Il] Fresh elec- tion petition filed by the petitioner by withdrawing the earlier petition. While filing the second election petition, security amount has to be deposited by the petitioner. Amount deposited with the first election petition cannot be treated as deposit of security for entertaining the second election petition. Election petition rightly dismissed by the Election Tribunal for non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. Roopa Singh v. State ofM.P., 2012(2) MPW 435 = 2012(2) MPHT 502. 121The respondent NO.1has admittedly, deposiied a sum of Rs. 5001- with the Tahsildar, who is not a specified officer as defined under Rule 2(d). Deposit of the security amount is a mandatory requirement as held by the Supreme Court tn the case of M. Karunanidhi v. Dr. H.V. Hande and Ors., 1983(2) SCC 473. The deposit ofthe security amount with any officer,other then the specified officer, may be Sub-ordinate Officer, does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules. Ram Das Singh v. Balran Singh, 2007(2) MPHT 58 (CG). Rule 8: Non-compliance of RUleid.ii'E:Iection PetitionO:[ lj f"stie --- ofdefect of non-compliance ofthe rules can be taken up by the Election Tribunal at any stage and it is not incumbent upon the authority to do so only at the threshold. Bayulal Verrna v. Additional Collector, Chhindwara, 2009(4) MPW 548 = 2010(1) MPHT 477. [2] Non compliance with Rules 3, 4 or 7. Prescribed Authority if after hearing the petitioner finds non-compliance of Rules 3, 4 or 7, it has no choice but to dismiss the petition. Divisiya wi 0 Naresh Paraste v. Shanta wi 0 Narayan Singh Pusham, 2011(2) MPW 701 . .[3lProv;.sioil"areiiflinaatory.-(a) The provisionsofRules7-and-8are- mandatory. Where secunty amount was not deposited along with the election petition, such a petition is liable to be dismissed. Udaysingh v. Himmatsingh, 1999 (1) JLJ 200. (b) But in a case where deposit was not made along with the election petition but made subsequently before expiration ofthe period of limitation and also before cognizance of the matter was taken, the election petition does not suffer from a fatal defect. AIR 1986 MP 49 Disting. Ravl Thakur v. Shivshankar, A;lR 1997 MP 136. See also Kailashnarayan v. Namdar, 1996 JW 3111, (c)It is essential that an electionpetition shouldbe signed and verified. Further it is essential that it should accompanyas many copiesof such a petition as there are respondents. Udaysingh v.Himmatsingh, 1999(1)JLJ