Point of Law: Election petition - Simply because of the reason that words as attested to be true copy was not scribed will not make any difference and dismissal only on this count cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT :

Heard

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 29.10.2020 whereby the election petition preferred under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Adhiniyam, 1993”) has been rejected accepting the ground raised by way of preliminary objection.

2. It is submitted that against the selection of the Sarpanch of respondent No.5, the petitioner who was also contesting candidate filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. During such proceeding before the S.D.O., who is competent authority, an objection was preferred by Annexure P-4 that the election petition is not maintainable on different grounds. Predominant ground was projected that the copy of election petition which was supplied the endorsement with the word “attested and true copy” was not scribed which is required under Rule 3(2) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices & Disqualification For Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1995”). The learned S.D.O. after hearing the parties accepted the preliminary objection dismissed the entire petition filed under Section 122 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 by holding that the copy of the petition which was supplied by the petitioner to the opposite party was not endorsed with word attested to be certified copy, which is mandatory under the Rules.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the election petition which is placed on record as Annexure P-3 and submits that the copy of petition itself was bearing the signature of the petitioner. Therefore, even if the word “it is attested true copy” of the original petition has not been scribed, it will not make any difference and the law laid down in 2006 (3) M.P.L.J. is answer to the dispute. Therefore, the order of the S.D.O. be set aside and the case be remanded back for hearing before the S.D.O.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1995 the requirement to make an endorsement that it is “attested true copy” is mandatory. Therefore, the order impugned is well merited. It is further submitted that even on the merit since there is a huge difference in between the count margin no useful purpose would be served to remand the case back to the S.D.O.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the S.D.O.

6. The order of dismissal of election petition shows that pursuant to the objection raised by the respondent No.5 along with different grounds, while the order was passed the S.D.O. confined its order to the issue that the copy of election petition which was supplied to the respondents were not endorsed with “attested to be true copy”. The order speaks of Section 22 Rule 17 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, which is not in the statute book. Therefore, the tenor of the order is only on the fact that the petition was dismissed for non-compliance of Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1995. Rule 3 of the Rules, 1995 for the sake of brevity is reproduced herein :

“3. Presentation of election petition. -(1) An election petition shall be presented to the specified officer during the office hours by the person making the petition, or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition.

(2) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.”

7. The similar issue came up for hearing before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Ravindra Singh v. Sub-Divisional Officer-Cum-Prescribed Authority, Datia & Others reported in 2006 (3) M.P.L.J. wherein the Court at Para 8, 9 & 10 held as under :

“8. As far as attestation of the true copies sent along with the notice to respondent No. 1 is concerned, Rule 3 sub-rule (2) of the Rules of 1995 contemplates that every ele