( 1. ) PETITIONER aggrieved by order Annexure P-1, dated 18-1-99 passed in Election Petition No. 8/93-94 has filed this petition. By the impugned order the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat has been set aside.

( 2. ) THE petition was admitted for hearing on 23-1-99 and the order Annexure P-1 was stayed. Accordingly, the petitioner is still holding the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.

( 3. ) THE election of the Gram Panchayat, Bhaguapura was notified and election to the post of Sarpanch was held on 23-5-94. The post was reserved for the backward class candidates.

( 4. ) THE petitioner contested the election and was declared elected. Respondent No. 1 Ramjilal filed a petition inter alia contending that the nomination papers of respondent No. 6 Raghuveer was illegally accepted, Raghuveer was not a member of the backward class, acceptance of his nomination papers according to the petitioner violates the entire election process. In the election petition the allegations were with regard to acceptance of nomination papers of respondent No. 6. The petitioner had secured 310 votes and respondent No. 6 had secured 13 votes. According to the petitioner even if after the respondent No. 6 was permitted to contest the election, the fact is that he secured only 13 votes and therefore the final result of the election is not materially affected.

( 5. ) THAT apart the petitioner filed an objection Annexure P-3 with regard to delay in filing of the election petition. The election in question was held on 23-5-94 and notification was also issued on the same day. Accordingly, the election petition should have been filed within 30 days but the election petition was filed on 27-7-94. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the petition was filed beyond the period of limitation, the Election Tribunal ought to have dismissed the petition.

( 6. ) IT is further averred by the petitioner that apart from the aforesaid objection, on 6-1-99 the petitioner had submitted an application Annexure P-5 making a prayer that issues be framed and evidence be recorded. However by order dated 6-1-99 (Annexure P-6) this prayer was rejected and the Election Tribunal held that the petition can be disposed of on the basis of record of election and arguments. Accordingly issues were not framed and no evidence was recorded. This according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner vitiates the entire proceedings of the Election Petition.

( 7. ) PER contra learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the orders passed vide Annexures P-1 and P-6 are legal and proper. The Tribunal has correctly appreciated the facts and no case for grant of relief is made out by the Tribunal.

( 8. ) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

( 9. ) SECTION 122 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 provides for filing election petition calling in question any election conducted under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, Sub-section (2) of the aforesaid Section provides for filing of an election petition within 30 days from the date on which the election is notified. In this section there is no provision for condoning the delay in filing the petition, on the contrary express provision has been made wherein admittance of a petition presented after a prescribed period of 30 days is prohibited. In the instant case the election petition was filed beyond the period of 30 days. Notification of the election was done on 23-5-94 and accordingly, the petition should have been filed on 23-6-94. However the petition was filed on 27-7-94, therefore, it is beyond the period prescribed in Sub-section (2) of Section 122. This Court in the case of Kishan Singh v. Harveer Singh, 1998 (1) M. P. Weekly Notes 83, had held that the limitation prescribed for filing of election petition under Section 122 cannot be extended. It has been held in the aforesaid case that the provisions of the Limitation Act including