( 1. ) BY this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 16-12-2000, Annexure P-4, passed by the Specified Officer under provisions of the M. P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to the Rules ).

( 2. ) THE facts as have been adumbrated are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Thandi, District Betul in the year 1999. The respondent No. 1, being aggrieved by the victory of the petitioner in the election, assailed the same by initiating a proceeding under Section 122 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhmiyam, 1993. The election petition was prepared and verified on 21-2-2000 and was presented through the counsel on 25-2-2000. The order-sheet dated 25-2-2000 bears the signature of the clerk of the counsel but does not bear the signature of the respondent No. 1, the election petitioner. As the presentation was invalid the petitioner filed an application before the respondent No. 8 assailing the maintainability of the petition. The respondent No. 8, the Election Tribunal, did not appreciate the challenge in proper perspective and rejected the preliminary objection by order dated 16-12-2000.

( 3. ) ASSAILING the aforesaid order it is contended by Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner that as the presentation was not in accordance with the Rule 3 of the Rules, the command of Rule 8 will apply in full force and the election petition is to be dismissed being not properly presented. In support of the submission the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Suman Santosh Kumar Patel v. Bhanwati Mahesh Pratap Patel and Anr. , 1999 (1) MPLJ 88.

( 4. ) MR. Pranay Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the election petition was presented by the counsel who was authorised by the election petition.

( 5. ) IT is apposite to mention here that when the aforesaid controversy was debated Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 assiduously contended that in the vakalatnama a specified authorisation was given to present the election petition. Keeping in view the aforesaid submission this Court directed for production of the relevant record so that the vakalatnama in question could be looked into. The said file has been made available by Mr. P. D. Gupta, learned Deputy Advocate General for the Stale. Before I proceed to deal with the factum of authorisation, it is apposite to refer to Rule 3 of the Rules. It reads as under :-

"3. Presentation of election petition.-- (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 authorised 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 a true copy of the petition. "

According to the aforesaid rule an election petition is required to be presented before the Prescribed Officer by the person making the petition or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf. Rule 8 reads as under :-

"8. Procedure on receiving petition.-- If the provisions of Rule 3 or Rule 4 or Rule 7 have not been complied with, the petition, shall be dismissed by the Specified Officer: Provided that the petition shall not be dismissed under this rule without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. "

( 6. ) IN the case of Suman Santosh (supra), it has been held as under:-

". . . . . . There is distinction between the "present" and "presentation". Even if the election petitioner was present before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 26-7-1997 even then it cannot be said that the election