JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition involves a challenge to the order dated 14.07.2017 passed in Election Petition No.2 of 2017 rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 were the contestants for the post of Member of the Zilla Parisad Zone No.49 in the District of Ganjam. The opposite party No.2 being the unsuccessful candidate in the Zilla Parisad Election raised an election dispute against the present petitioner registered as Election Petition No.2 of 2017 on the file of learned District Judge, Ganjam-Berhampur. The election of the opposite party No.1 therein-the present petitioner was challenged on the ground that the elected candidate for her having more than two children was disqualified under Section 33(W) of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act, 1991 hereinafter called as the Act, 1991. Thus, while praying for declaring the opposite party No.1 was disqualified for the election of the Zilla Parishad and being the next nearest contestant prayed for issuing a direction to the opposite party Nos.3 to 5 therein to notify the name of the petitioner as the elected member of the Zilla Parisad Zone No.49. Upon service of copy of the election petition, the successful candidate i.e. the present petitioner-opposite party No.1 therein in the election dispute filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C seeking dismissal of the election petition on two counts, firstly, the elected candidate had no cause of action in absence of material particulars about the exact date of birth, secondly, the election petition was not accompanied with the security deposits which amounts failure of statutory compliances. The present petitioner filing her objection contended that the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C was not maintainable for having a clear cause of action involving the election dispute. Further, for tendering the security deposits within the time limitation for filing the election petition the election petition was very much valid. Entering into contest, the Election Tribunal i.e. learned District Judge giving finding on both the counts against the present petitioner held not only the election petition had cause of action but for the deposit of the security amount by 7.03.2017 the election petitioner complied all the formalities required therein. 3. Entering into contest, the Election Tribunal i.e. learned District Judge giving finding on both the counts against the present petitioner held not only the election petition had cause of action but for the deposit of the security amount by 7.03.2017 the election petitioner complied all the formalities required therein. 3. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Orissa Zila Parisad Act and also the provision contained in Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C contended that for the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Act and since the security amount has not been deposited on the date of filing of the election petition, the election petition was invalid. Sri K.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that the learned District Judge has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and further, also failed in appreciating the issues involved regarding the election dispute having no cause of action. Sri K.K. Mishra, learned counsel thus, claimed that the impugned order becomes bad in law and should be interfered with. 4. Sri Gautam Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 referring to the objection filed in the Court below in reiterating the grounds taken therein submitted that not only there is appropriate deposit of security involved but the petitioner has also a definite cause of action pleaded therein and thus claimed that the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. has failed on both the counts, the Court below has definite findings on both the counts and thus, claimed that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. Sri P. Acharya, leaned Senior Advocate though appears in the matter on behalf of the State Election Commissioner but for the limited role of the State Election Commissioner in the matter requested the Court for passing an order in accordance with law. 6. Undisputed fact remains here that the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 were the contestants for the post of Member of the Zilla Parishad Zone No.49 in the District of Ganjam. There also remain no dispute regarding voting in the election taken place on 17.02.2017. In the first counting though the petitioner was declared elected but in the recounting on 25.02.2017 the opposite party No.2 was declared to have been elected as a Member of the Zilla Parisad Zone No.49 in the District of Ganjam. There also remain no dispute regarding voting in the election taken place on 17.02.2017. In the first counting though the petitioner was declared elected but in the recounting on 25.02.2017 the opposite party No.2 was declared to have been elected as a Member of the Zilla Parisad Zone No.49 in the District of Ganjam. Thus looking to the provision contained in Section 32 of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act read with provisions contained in the Chapter VI-A in the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 particularly the provisions at Section 44-B of the Act, 1959, it appears, the petitioner therein i.e. the present opposite party No.2 was required to file the election petition within fifteen days after the day on which the result in the election was announced. For better appreciation of the mater this Court before proceeding to decide on the merit of the case would like to take note of the provisions at Section 32(I)(2) & (3) of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act, 1991 and also the provision at Section 44-B of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, which reads as follows: “[32. Election disputes-(1) No election of a person either as a member or as the President or Vice-President of a Parishad held under this Act shall be called in question except by an election petition presented before the District Judge having jurisdiction over the place at which office of the Parishad is situated. (2) For the purpose of Sub-section (1), the provisions contained in Chapter-VI-A (hereinafter referred to in this sections as the said Chapter) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 shall mutatis mutandis apply except as hereunder provided. (2) For the purpose of Sub-section (1), the provisions contained in Chapter-VI-A (hereinafter referred to in this sections as the said Chapter) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 shall mutatis mutandis apply except as hereunder provided. In the said Chapter- (i) The reference to the expression “Samiti” and “Election Commissioner” wherever they occur, shall be construed as reference to “Parishad” and “District Judge” respectively; (ii) an election petition presented before a District Judge may, either suo motu or on application, be transferred to any Additional District Judge; (iii) for Sub-section (3) of Section 44-J the following Sub-section shall be substituted, namely; “(3) In the event of the District Judge declaring a casual vacancy to have been created, it shall direct the appropriate authority to take steps for filling the vacancy” and (iv) for Section 44-Q the following section shall be substituted, namely:” “44-B. Presentation of petitions –(1) The petition shall be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 44-L before the [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] having jurisdiction over the place at which the office of the Samiti is situated] together with a deposit of [two hundred rupees] as security for costs within fifteen days after the day on which the result of the election was announced: Provided that if the office of the [Civil Judge (Senior Division) is closed on the last day of the period of limitation as aforesaid the petition may be presented on the next day on which such office is open: Provided further that if the petitioner satisfies the [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] that sufficient cause existed for the failure to present the petition within the period aforesaid the {Civil Judge (Senior Division)] may in his discretion condone such failure: Provided also that in cases where the result of the election was announced prior to the 26th day of January 1961, the aforesaid period of limitation shall be computed from the said date. 2[***] [(3) An election petition presented before a [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] may either suo motu or on an application, be transferred by the District Judge to any other [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] subordinate to him.] (4) [***] (5) No candidate who has been elected to be a Member, Chairman or Vice-Chairman of a [***] Samiti shall be debarred from holding office as such Member, Chairman or Vice-Chairman merely by reason of any lection petition having been filed against him unless his election has been declared void by the [Civil Judge (Senior Division)]. (6) [***]” 7. From Annexure-1 it appears, the election petition was filed on 3.03.2017 and from the submission made by the respective parties and discussions made in the impugned order, it appears, though the election petition does not accompany the security deposit but on 3.03.2017 itself a petition was filed alongwith four challans praying the Court for taking up the matter and allowing the petitioner therein to deposit the security amount of Rs.200/-with the Nazir of the District Court, Ganjam at Berhampur. The above petition was posted to 6.03.2017 and on this date itself an order was passed for accepting the security amount and as a consequence thereof, the security amount was deposited on 7.03.2017. Undisputedly, the result in the election was declared on 25.02.2017 based on a recounting process and the security involved was deposited on 7.03.2017. 8. Reading of the above provisions quoted in paragraph No.6 hereinabove, it appears, the time stipulation for filing of the election dispute is 15 days after the day result was announced. Looking to the factual aspect available from the pleadings as well as the discussions available in the impugned order, it appears the Election petition did accompany a chalan for deposit of the security amount and with a request therein for directing the Nazir to accept the security amount on 3.03.2017 itself. District Court taking up the request passed the order directing for acceptance of the Security amount on 6.03.2017 and the deposit of the amount was made on 7.03.2017. Thus, it becomes clear that the security deposit was made within ten days of the prescribed period of limitation of 15 days for filing of the election petition. District Court taking up the request passed the order directing for acceptance of the Security amount on 6.03.2017 and the deposit of the amount was made on 7.03.2017. Thus, it becomes clear that the security deposit was made within ten days of the prescribed period of limitation of 15 days for filing of the election petition. The Hon’ble Apex Court in deciding a matter on similar situation in the case of M.Y. Ghorpada v. Shivaji Rao M. Paol and others as reported in AIR 2002 SC 3105 though held that the requirement of making security deposit is mandatory but considering that the deposit was not made while presenting the election petition, but looking to the mode of deposit, the person who could make a deposit, has to be complied with the rules of the High Court, held the deposit of security to be directory. In another case between Yashwant Singh Yadav v. Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer and another as dealing with a case of election dispute under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules as reported in 1991 RD 439 it has been held that in the case of deposit of security, the amount before expiry of the period on limitation prescribed for filing of the election petition, it would amount to substantial compliance of the related provisions. Similarly, in another case in between Smt. Kiranbala Rout v. Smt. Rasnamayee Roy as reported in 2013(I) OLR-205 considering that the security amount was deposited within the period of limitation a Single Bench of this Court has held that there has been substantial compliance of the security deposit aspect. In another case in the case in between Shiv Chand v. Ujagar Singh and another as reported in AIR 1978 SC 1583 the Hon’ble Apex Court considering a matter involving Representation of Peoples Act came to hold that the substance of the matter must govern because hyper-technicality, when the public policy of the Statute is fulfilled, cannot be permitted to play procedural tyrant to defeat a vital judicial process namely investigation into the merits of the election petition. 9. 9. Under the circumstance, considering the judicial pronouncements indicated hereinabove, the provision contained in Section 32 of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act, 1991 read with the provisions in Chapter VI-A of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959, the event taken note hereinabove, for either the Act, 1991 or the Act, 1959 having not contained a provision for dismissal of the Election Petition on the ground of non-deposit of security amount together with the Election Petition, and also for the observations made hereinabove, this Court finds, there has been substantial compliance of the requirement of deposit of the security amount within the limitation period. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order, which is accordingly, confirmed. 10. The writ petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost.