The mandatory requirement of attestation by the petitioner under his own signature for every copy of the election petition intended for service on the respondent, as per Sec. 89(2) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act.

The petitioner was declared as a Member of Ward I of Paivalika Grama Panchayat in Kasargode Panchayat in the election conducted on 23.9.1995. The 1 st respondent in the O. P. filed a petition under Sec. 88(a) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act (for short 'the Act') before the Principal Munsiff, Kasargode on 29.9.1995 challenging the election of the petitioner on the ground that the counting of votes was not properly done. The said O. P. filed by the 1 st respondent was numbered as O. P. No. 6 of 1995 and notice was sent to the petitioner on the above said petition along with the copy of the election petition.

2. The petitioner on receipt of the notice in the election petition and the copy of the election petition filed an objection before the Principal Munsiff raising 3 points, namely: (1) that the Govt. have not notified the appropriate courts for dealing election cases after consulting the High Court as contemplated under Sec. 89(c) of the Act, and so the Principal Munsiff, Kasaragode, has no jurisdiction to deal with the election petition filed by the 1 st respondent; (2) that the election petition was not properly filed in terms of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 89 of the Act as the 1st respondent did not attest the copies of the election petition under his own signature to be true copies of the petition; (3) that the election petition was not signed by the petitioner in O. P. No. 6 of 1995 in the manner laid down in the Civil Procedure Code and the petitioner did not sign the annexure or the schedule and verify the same in the same manner as in the petition. The Principal Munsiff, on consideration of the above three points dismissed the petition by his order under Ext. P3. This O. P. is in challenge of the said order.

3. Though three points, as stated earlier, were raised by the petitioner before the Principal Munsiff, counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court gave up the 3rd point and confined his argument only to the first two points. As regards the first point it is to be stated that the Government in consultation with the High Court have issued a notification notifying the Principal Munsiff, Kasaragode, as the court to deal with election petitions.

4. The grievance of the petitioner that the said notification was not produced along with the election petition cannot be entertained as the stage for proving the notification was not reached. When the petitioner raised an objection, that there is no notification, the said notification was produced before the court and there is no dispute on this. In my view, the First contention of the petitioner has to fail and accordingly it is rejected.

5. Now let me consider the 2nd contention of the petitioner, namely, that the 1 st respondent did not attest the election petition under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. I feel that there is some force in the contention of the petitioner. The Supreme Court in Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone'(MR 1980 SC 303) while interpreting Sec. 89(3) of the Jammu & Kashmir Representation of the People Act (Act 4 of 1957), which provision is pari materia with the present provision under Sec. 89(2) of the Act, held that the requirement that every copy of the election petition which is intended for service on the respondent should be attested by the petitioner under his own signature is a mandatory requirement and the non-compliance with that requirement should result in the dismissal to the petition. The contention that the provision is only procedural in character was negatived by the Supreme Court in the above said judgment and held that the object of requiring the copy of an election petition to be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition appear to be that the petitioner should take full responsibility for its contents and that the respondent or respondents should have in their possession a copy of the petition duly attested under the signature of the petitioner to be a true co