Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner was elected as the Pradhan. Respondent No. 3, being aggrieved by the election result, filed an election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). One of the grounds of attack was that the petitioner stood disqualified to contest the election as he was working as a clerk in a District Co-operative Bank and was holding an office of profit.

2. The petitioner contested the election petition contending that the election petition was not maintainable since the election petition was presented personally by respondent No. 3 and that the election petition was not presented through his counsel. It was also contended that the pre-requisite deposit of Rs. 50/- was not deposited under a particular head, which was fatal to the maintainability of the election petition.

3. Initially, the election petition was allowed ex parte. The recall application filed by the petitioner was rejected, against which, a revision was filed, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits. Respondent No. 3 filed a writ petition, which was dismissed. Thereafter the matter proceeded before the Tribunal and the petitioner moved an application for dismissal of the election petition on the ground that the deposit of Rs. 50/- towards security was not deposited under the correct head which was fatal to the maintainability of the election petition. Further, since the election petition was not presented by the candidate i.e. respondent No. 3, the same was not maintainable and therefore the election petition should be dismissed on that score.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the matter allowed the election petition. Respondent No. 3, being aggrieved filed a revision under Section 12-C (6), which was allowed. The revisional Court held that the objections raised by the petitioner were technical and curable in nature. The Court held that it was sufficient for the candidate i.e. respondent No. 3 to sign the petition and thereafter it could be presented by the counsel. The revisional Court also found that the amount of Rs. 50/- was deposited and consequently, held that the election petition was maintainable. The revisional Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide on merits. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the revisional order, has filed the present writ petition.

5. The Court has heard Sri Rahul Agrawal assisted by Sri Nand Kishore Singh for the petitioner and Sri P.N.Saxena, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K.Pathak for the respondent.

The contention of the petitioner, is that the election petition could not be filed through his Advocate and that it was mandatory for the respondent No. 3 to present the election petition personally. Since the same was not done, the same was fatal and the election petition could not be cured and was liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel also stressed that under the Act and the Rules framed therein, the amount of Rs. 50/- as security was required to be deposited under the Personal Ledger Account of the Gram Panchayat and that the same could not be deposited under any head. It was contended that since the amount was not deposited under the specific head, the election petition was liable to be dismissed under the proviso to Rule 3 readwith Rule 4 (vi) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submitted that the provisions are not mandatory and are only directory in nature and consequently, the election petition could not be dismissed on such technicalities.

7. In support of their submissions, the learned counsel for the parties placed reliance on various decisions, which will be mentioned at the appropriate place.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance upon the provisions of Section