Mr. Daya Chaudhary, J.:- The present appeal has been filed against the Order dated 26.08.2009 passed in Election Petition under Sections 74 to 77, 79 and 90 of Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, vide which, the election petition filed by the respondents was accepted and the election of present appellant was set aside.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant as well as respondent No.1 contested the election of Gram Panchayat Thikriwala which was held on 22.06.2008. The appellant was declared elected. However, the respondent No.1 challenged the election of present appellant before the Election Tribunal (Deputy Commissioner), Barnala by filing petition under Sections 74 to 77, 79 and 90 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. Vide Order dated 26.08.2009, the election petition was allowed and the election of present appellant was set aside.

3. Notice of motion was issued on 24.09.2009 and operation of the impugned Order was also stayed. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned Order passed by the Tribunal mainly on the ground that certain votes were liable to be cancelled but the same were not cancelled and were counted valid votes in favour of respondent candidate and objections were also raised with regard to maintainability of the election petition but the same were not considered. Learned counsel also submits that the election petition filed by respondent No.1 was not maintainable as it was not presented in view of provisions of law i.e Sections 76 and 80 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the election petition was not signed by the candidate, whereas, it should have been signed on each and every case. As per Section 76 of the said Act, the petition has to be signed and attested by the election petitioner and copy supplied to the respondent candidate is also to be signed and attested by the election petitioner under his signature.

4. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case Ranjit Kaur vs Harjinder Kaur and others 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 406, wherein, under the same and similar circumstances, a controversy has arisen.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the case of the present petitioner was different from the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant.

6. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned Order passed by the Election Commissioner.

7. Admittedly, the appellant as well as respondent No.1 contested the election for the Office of Panch along with other candidates. The appellant was elected on the basis of majority votes and was declared elected as such. The election petition was filed by respondent No.1 to challenge the election of the appellant which was allowed. The present appeal has been filed to challenge the Order passed by the Election Commissioner by raising various grounds. The issue for consideration by this Court is whether the election petition filed by respondent No.1 could be allowed in spite of violations of Sections 76 and 80 of the Act. Sections 76 and 80 of the Act are reproduced as under :-

“ Sec 76. Presentation of petition :-

(1) An election petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 89 to the Election Tribunal by any candidate to such election or by any elector within a period of 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidates at the election and there are different dates of their election, then the later of these dates shall be taken into account for this purpose.

(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 signatures to be a true copy of the petition.

Section 80 Trial of Election petition.- (1) The Election Tribunal sha