Rule 3 (2) of the M. P. Panchayat Raj (Election Petitions Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1990 is mandatory and non-compliance with it would lead to summary dismissal of the election petition.

( 1 ) THE brief facts for the purposes of this writ petition be noticed.

( 2 ) THE present petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Miana, Tehsil and District of Guna. His election was challenged by the respondent No. 1. The present petitioner filed an application before the respondent No. 5 pleading that the election-petition deserves to be dismissed summarily as this has not been presented in terms of Rule 3 (2) of the M. P. Panchayat Raj (Election Petitions Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'rules' ). The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the election-petition is to be filed under the aforementioned, rules. ( 3 ) THE election Court has given its decision. The copy of the same is placed on record as Annexure P-1. It has come to the conclusion that copies of the election petition were not attested by the election petitioners. On facts at least, the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that copies of the election-petition when filed were not attested by the election-petitioner. It was attested only by the advocate appearing on behalf of the election- petitioner. It is on these premises arguments have been addressed.

( 4 ) THE question arises as to whether the provisions of Rule 3 (2) are mandatory or not,. For this, reliance is being placed by the petitioner's counsel on the provisions of Re- presentation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'act') and the decision rendered thereunder. According to the counsel for petitioner, Rule 3 (2) of re Rules is in pari materia with the Sections 81 (3) of the Act. He also submits that when there is non- compliance of Rule 3, the petition bas to be dismissed summarily in terms of Rule 8. It is again contended that Rule 8 of the Rules is in pari materia with Section 86 (1) of the Act.

( 5 ) BEFORE noticing further arguments it would be relevant to note these provisions. These are as under :-"rules 3 and 8 of the Rules:rule 3. Presentation of election petitions.- (1) An election petition shall be presented to the prescribed authority 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 within thirty days from the date on which the election or co-option in question was notified. (2) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under this own signature to be a true copy of the petition. Rule 8. Procedure on receiving petition - If the provisions of Rule 3 or Rule 4 or Rule 7 have not been complied with, the prescribed authority shall dismiss the petition:provided that the petition shall not be dismissed without giving petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Sections 81 (3) and 86 (1) of the 1951 Act-Section 81 (3 ).- 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 this own signature to be a true copy of the petition. Section 86 (1) - The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Sec. 81 or Sec. 82 or Sec. 117. "

( 6 ) A perusal of the two provisions makes it apparent that there are similarly worded and as such decisions given under the Act can be safely taken as guide for interpretation of the Rules under which the petition was filed.

( 7 ) THE question which arises is as to whether failure to attest the election petition would lead to dismissal of the election petition or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two judgments given by the Supreme Court in the case of Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani, AIR 1980 SC 303 and F. A. Sapa v, Singora, AIR 1991 SC 1557.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on a decision given by the Division Bench of this Cou