JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri Gopal Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. By this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5.8.2006, passed by the Prescribed Authority, rejecting the application of writ petitioner dated 14.2.2006, for dismissing the election petition filed by the respondent No. 2. 3. The petitioner was elected Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and an election petition under Section 12(c) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 was filed by the respondent No. 2. An application was filed by the petitioner dated 14.2.2006, praying that the election petitioner has not deposited Rs. 50/- as security in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Dispute) Rules, 1996 hence, the election petition be dismissed as not maintainable. The Prescribed Authority heard both the parties. The Prescribed Authority referred to paragraph 16 of the election petition, which specifically pleaded that security of Rs. 50/- in the Khata of Gram Panchayat Dhana Khas was deposited in the Regional Rural Bank, Fatehpur on 26.9.2005 in Khata No. 83, receipt of which has been attached alongwith election petition. The Prescribed Authority held that since the amount of Rs. 50/- has been deposited in Khata No. 83 of Fatehpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, the election petition is not liable to be dismissed. 4. Sri Gopal Misra, challenging the order impugned, contended that there being no compliance of deposit of Rs. 50/- in the personal Ledger Account of Gram Panchayat, the election petition was liable to be dismissed. He also referred to an application dated 13.1.2006 of the petitioner addressed to Branch Manager Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Fatehpur containing endorsement of the Manager that amount of Rs. 50/- deposited by the petitioner, has been transferred in Misc. Account and Account No. 83 is not the Gram Nidhi Khata. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that amount of Rs. 50/- was deposited hence, the election petition was not liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the respondent referred to receipt of Rs. 50/- filed by the petitioner himself as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jaibir Singh v. District Judge, Bulandshahr and others, (1996) 3 UPLBEC 2187 . 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. 50/- filed by the petitioner himself as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jaibir Singh v. District Judge, Bulandshahr and others, (1996) 3 UPLBEC 2187 . 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. The deposit of Rs. 50/- by the election petitioner in Fatehpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 26.9.2005 i.e. before filing the election petition, is not disputed. The receipt of deposit has been annexed by the petitioner himself as Annexure-6, which refers to Gram Nidhi Dhamona Khurd. It was specifically mentioned in paragraph 16 of the election petition that Rs. 50/- has been deposited in Gram Nidhi Khata of Gram Panchayat in Fatehpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 26.9.2005 and receipt was annexed with the election petition hence, there was sufficient compliance of the said provision. Although the Rule 3 of 1994 rules proviso requires deposit by a treasury challan in personal ledger account of Gram Panchayat but this Court in several judgments have taken the view that deposit in the personal ledger account of Gram Panchayat concerned, cannot be said to be mandatory and deposit of Rs. 50/- in the Bank for the benefit of the Gram Panchayat was held to be substantial compliance. In the case of Arun Kumar v. Prescribed Authority and another, Civil Writ Petition No. 8470 of 2007, decided on 7.3.2007 Rule 3 proviso came up for consideration and following was laid down : “Thus, following the same analogy Rule 3 (1) proviso in so far as it provides that the election petition shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the treasury challan to show that the amount of Rs. 50/- has been deposited is mandatory whereas the manner of deposit cannot be said to be mandatory failure of which may entail dismissal of the election petition. In case the deposit is shown for the purposes of the election petition for the Gaon Sabha in question substantial compliance is fully proved and the election petition need not be dismissed on the ground that the deposit is not in the particular account, i.e., personal ledger account of the Gaon Sabha. The petitioner himself has filed treasury challan by which the amount was deposited in the State Bank of India by the petitioner for the purposes of election petition of village Mohinipur. The petitioner himself has filed treasury challan by which the amount was deposited in the State Bank of India by the petitioner for the purposes of election petition of village Mohinipur. The aforesaid deposit clearly makes out substantial compliance of Rule 3 and the election petition is fully entertained on the strength of such deposit.” 7. The judgment relied by learned Counsel for the respondent in the case of Jaibir Singh (supra) does support this contention. There being deposit of Rs. 50/- in the Kshetriya Gramin Bank, purporting to be in the account of Gram Nidhi Dhan, was sufficient compliance and Prescribed Authority did not commit any error in rejecting the application of the petitioner holding that deposit as sufficient compliance. There is no error in the order of the Prescribed Authority, warranting any interference by this Court, while exercising the extra-ordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed. ————