1. The order passed in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India shall also decide the connected petition being W.P. No. 5275 of 1996 Himmat Singh v. Uday Singh and others) against the same order dated 15.11.1996 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal as Specified Officer in the election petition filed under Sec. 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

2. The Specified Officer has passed a very peculiar order whereby both the contesting parties to the petition feel aggrieved. The Specified Officer had tried the election petition in such a slip-shod and illegal manner that the proceedings dragged on for number of days and earlier two writ petitions came to be filed in the course of election trial. The facts narrated hereunder would justify that it is high time that the legislature should seriously consider appointing any judicial officer or any officer of rank higher than Sub-Divisional Officer to be the Specified Officer for trying election petitions under the Act. A minimum knowledge of election law is necessary for trying an election petition. The impugned order by the Specified Officer in this case shows complete lack of the same.

3. The present petitioner, Uday Singh was declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Raipur, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal by a margin of two votes. The petitioner got 274 votes as against 272 votes received by the respondent No.1 The defeated candidate Himmat Singh (respondent No.1) filed an election petition before the Specified Officer on 11.7.1994. As the order-sheet of the Specified Officer shows, on that date no security amount was deposited along with the petition. The order sheet contains a direction that the security amount be deposited. The election petition was filed which contained no signature of the petitioner on the petition and no verification clause to the same. Thereafter, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the election petitioner stating that by mistake the petition was filed without any verification clause. Despite objection to the valid presentation of the election petition raised by the contesting respondent, the election petition was allowed to be amended by order dated 12.1.1995 and verification was allowed to be inserted in the petition. The trial of election petition lingered on for non-availability of the Specified Officer on several dates. On 7.6.1995 the counsel for the election petitioner stated before the Specified Officer that his client desired to have a decision on recount first. Without framing any issue on recount and trying the same, the Specified Officer straight-away on 7.6.1995 itself issued directions for calling the ballot papers.

4. The present petitioner as contesting respondent and the successful candidate in the election, raised serious objections to the direction for calling the ballot papers for recount. The Counsel on his behalf has stated that the Specified Officer should first decide the question of maintainability of the election petition and dismiss the same on the ground of non-compliance of mandatory provisions such as non-deposit of security amount in time and not signing and properly verifying the election petition within prescribed time.

5. The objection raised by the contesting respondent to the maintainability of the election petition was rejected by the Specified Officer on 10.1.1996 stating in his order that the preliminary objection cannot be allowed as he has already made an order of recount on 7.6.95. Aggrieved by the manner in which the Specified Officer proceeded with the trial of the election petition, the present petitioner as successful candidate in the election preferred a writ petition in this Court being W.P. No. 904 of 1996 which was summarily dismissed by this Court on 11.3 .1996 on the ground that the writ petition was premature and the petitioner has the remedy of challenging the final order, if and when passed by the Specified Officer.

6. After su