M.N. Bhandari, J.

1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 22.10.2016, whereby, application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel submits that an election petition was filed under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules of 1994'). It was by invoking rule 80 of the Rules of 1994. As per rule 81 of the Rules of 1994, presentation of the election petition can be by a candidate at such election or by a person authorized by him/her in writing by the person making the petition. In the instant case, election petition has been filed by an Advocate, who was not authorized for presentation thereof. The petitioner raised objection regarding maintainability of the election petition, however, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed in ignorance of the rule 81(1) of the Rules of 1994. Reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "GV Sreerama Reddy & anr versus Returning Officer & ors", (2009) 8 SCC 736 has been given where similar issue was decided.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has opposed the writ petition. He submits that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has rightly been dismissed by the court below. It is after taking into consideration rule 84 of the Rules of 1994. It permits a pleader to appear, to act or file application before the court on behalf of the person at such election. The Vakalatnama was given in favour of the Advocate who presented the election petition thus election petition has rightly been filed by the Advocate. The application submitted by the petitioner has been rightly rejected. The order impugned herein may accordingly be maintained.

4. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

5. The perusal of the order reveals that an election petition was presented on 16.2.2015 by Mr. Naveen Goyal, Advocate. The petition to challenge the election was not filed by a candidate at such election. It was by an Advocate who has not been authorized to present the election petition as is required under explanation to sub-rule (1) of rule 81 of the Rules of 1994. The learned court below has made reference of rule 84 of the Rules of 1994 which does not given authority to the Advocate to present the election petition.

6. The interpretation given by the court below needs rewriting of rule 81(1) of the Rules of 1994. The application made under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed in reference to General Rules (Civil), whereas, the aforesaid was of no consequence to the controversy raised by the petitioner. Rule 80, 81 and 84 of the Rules of 1994 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference -

"80. Manner of challenging an election under the Act.-

An election under the Act or under the Rules may be called in question by any candidate at such election by presenting a petition to the District Judge having jurisdiction within thirty days from the date on which the result of such election is declared, on any one or more of the following grounds:-

(a) that on the date of election, a returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified, for such election, or

(b) that any corrupt practice was committed by a candidate or by any other person with the consent or connivance of the candidate, or

(c) that any nomination was improperly rejected, or

(d) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate was materially affected-

(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or

(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the candidate by a person other than that candidate or by a person acting with the consent or connivance of such candidate, or

(iii) by improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which was void, or

(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of these rules, or

(e) that in fact the petitioner or some other candidate received a maj