1. As per the order dated 28.4.97 and order dated 1.7.97 and with the consent of the parties, the petition is disposed of finally. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner before this Court Shivdhari was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chachar, Tahsil Singrauli, District Sidhi. The result of the election was declared on 24.5.94. This election was challenged by means of an election petition under section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by respondent No. 1 Jaduman.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner .raised the following two points :-

(1) That the requirement of rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) was not complied with, inasmuch as:

(i) the election petition was not presented before the prescribed authority by the person challenging the election of the petitioner i.e. the respondent No. 1 nor by any other person authorised in this behalf by the election petitioner;

(ii) the election petition, as per the requirement of sub-rule (2) of rule 3 of the Rules, was not accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents mentioned in the election-petition together with the required attestation.

(2) That the security deposit of Rs. 250/- was not done but only a sum of Rs. 50/- was deposited and that too on 29.6.94 and not at the time of the presentation of the election-petition.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the election petition was liable to be dismissed under rule 8 for non-compliance of the provisions of rule 3 which was the mandatory requirement under the law.

4. The above questions involved are purely questions of law and the facts have only perpheral relevance.

So far as the declaration of the result of the election is concerned, there is no dispute and the date of declaration of the result was 24.5.94. Further there is no dispute that the election petition was filed on 1.6.94 before the Tahsildar Singrauli. There is also no dispute that the election petition was not accompanied with as many copies as there were respondents mentioned in the petition and no certification was done on such copies, to be true copies. The security amount of Rs. 50/- was deposited instead of Rs. 250/-, as the then was the requirement of law, on 29.6.94.

5. In support of the first point, learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to Annexure P-7 which is the copy of the order-sheet. The order-sheet dated 1.6.94 in Annexure P-7 mentions that the election petition has been presented and the same be placed before the Prescribed Authority on 6.6.94. The Sub-Divisional Officer taking the petition to be within time and also since the election-petitioner was inclined to deposit Rs. 50/- which could not be deposited because of the non-availability of the MPTC-6, directed that the security amount be deposited subsequently It was on 29.6.97 that the security amount was deposited by challan.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the above facts, it is clear that the election petition was not presented before the Prescribed Authority by the election petitioner himself or by any other person authorised in this behalf. Secondly, the security amount was not deposited by the election-petitioner at the time of the filing of the election-petition. Learned counsel further submitted that regarding security amount, the election-petitioner in para 13 of the election-petition stated to the following effect :-

**¼13½s ;g fd vkosnd izfrHkwfr tek djus dk gsM u tku ldus ds dkj.k izfrHkwfr dh jkf"k 50@& :i;s pkyku }kjk ugha tek dj ldk] og U;k;ky; dk vkns"k gksus ij uxn 50@& :i;s izfrHkwfr dh jkf"k tek djus dks rS;kj gSA**

This fact itself indicates that the election petitioner could not make deposit not because of the non-availabilit