1. With consent the matter is heard finally.

2. Grievance put forth by the petitioner is against the order dated 6.3.2010 whereby the Sub Divisional Cum, Prescribed Authority instead of dwelling upon the preliminary objection as to maintainability of an election petition under section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred as Adhini yam, 1993) directed the petition to be posted for hearing on merit.

3. Facts briefly are that in a election of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Nado held on 18.1.2010, the petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch. The respondent No. 1A, one of the contestant being aggrieved filed an election petition under section 122 of Adhiniyam and the Rules framed thereunder.

4. The petitioner raised an objection as to maintainability of the election petition on the ground of non-compliance of provisions of Rules 3, 5 and 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. (hereinafter to be referred as Rules of 1995) contending inter alia that, the election petition filed on 4.2.2010 was not duly verified and that the security amount required to be deposited at the time of presentation of an election petition was not deposited with the specified officer but later 8.2.2010 was deposited with Tahsildar Amrapatan who being not an authorised officer, the deposited of security amount was thus not in consonance with the Rules of 1995. It is further contended that the authorised officer was under obligation to have first dwelt upon the preliminary objection raised, instead, the matter was posted for decision on merit. It is accordingly, urged that, since the authorised officer has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him, this Court may interfere in the matter and dismiss the election petition.

5. The respondent on his turn has to submit that the prescribed authority did not commit any error in posting the matter for hearing on merits instead of confining to the preliminary submissions. It is accordingly urged that the petition being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed.

6. Considered the rival submissions.

7. Rules of1995 are framed under section 95 (1) read with sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 122 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. Rule 3 makes a provision regarding presentation of election petition. It stipulates:

"(1) An election petition shall be presented to the specified officer during the office hours by the person making the petition, or by a person authorized in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition.

(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 signature to be true copy of the petition."

8. In the case at hand, the election petition was presented on 4.2.2010 by the counsel on behalf of the respondent No.1 A, the petitioner in the election petition, as will be evident from order sheet dated 4.2.2010. The presentation of the election petition by the counsel seems to be on the basis of the Vakalatnarna, Annexure P-5_A, which does not specifically authorise him to present the petition. The order sheet dated 4.2.2010 records:

/kkjk 122@36 iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e 1993 Ã- ds rgr ;kfpdkdrkZ dh vksj ls Jh mes'k f=ikBh] vf/koDrk }kjk xzke iapk;r uknks ds ljiap in ds fuokZpu fujLr dj ‘kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus gsrq ;kfpdk izLrqr xà gSA

;kfpddrkZ vfHk- ds ;kfpdk vkosnu ij rdZ lqus x;sA

vr%

izdj.k iathc) gks

;kfpdk drkZ ;kfpdk dh fu/kkZfjr jkf'k tek djsA

xSj ;kfpdk drkZ ryo gks

okLrs xSj ;kfpdk drkZ dh ryoh gsrq is'kh 8-2-2010

9. Though it is observed that there is a signature of the respondent No.1 A in the margin, but the order sheet dated 4.2.2010 does not acknowledge nor does it record that the respondent No. 1A presented the election petition.

10. In Suman Santosh Kumar Patel v. Bhanwati Mahesh Pratap Patel and another, 1999 (