' GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-It is stated by the learned counsel that the Returning Officer misled the petitioner and other candidates, opposing respondent No, 3, so that they deposited a sum of Rs, 500 each as security, instead of Rs, 1,000 as required under rule 14. It is further stated that when the petitioner and others came to know that they had been misled they rushed back to deposit the remaining amount but the Returning Officer had closed his office at 2.00 p. m., so as to oust them from contesting the election.
2. It is admitted by the learned counsel that the Municipality in question had been upgraded to attain the status of a corporation. It is further admitted that under the Rules in such a case a sum of Rs, 1.000 was to be deposited as security by each candidate. The question, therefore, is whether this Court should interfere in such a case.
3. Admittedly, this question would need an elaborate inquiry, which this Court generally would not enter into. The allegations if proved may A also require a severe action, against the Returning Officer. The Legislature on the other hand, has taken care of such a situation under section 17 (2).
The petitioner, therefore, should have approached the Election Authority who is competent to interfere in such matters.
' This petition is, therefore, misplaced and shall stand disposed of as such. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.