( 1. ) THIS petition is directed against order dated 4-10-2005 passed by the Collector cum Prescribed Authority under Section 122 of M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred as the Act ). A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner under Rule 8 of M. P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for dismissal of the election petition for the non-compliance of Rule 3 (2) of the Rules, which has been turned down.

( 2. ) FACTS of the case are that the petitioner is a returned candidate for the office of President, Janpad Panchayat, Gunnore, District Panna. The election was held on 14-2-2005. Respondent No. 1 Anjana Sharma challenged the election of the petitioner by filing an election petition under Section 122 of the Act on various grounds. The petitioner was served with a notice of the election petition. Petitioner filed reply of the election petition in which in Paragraph 16, petitioner raised an objection that the copy of the petition supplied to him was not attested as true copy by respondent No. 1, while Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules provides that the copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the election petition. For the non-compliance of the Rule 3 (2) the Election Petition itself was liable to be dismissed under Rule 8 of the Rules. The Election Tribunal by the impugned order found that the copy of election petition supplied to the petitioner was signed on every page by the election petitioner and mere omission to write words attested to be true copy will not entail dismissal of election petition. On the aforesaid grounds, the Election Tribunal rejected the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner. This order is under challenge in this petition.

( 3. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provision of Rule 3 (2) is mandatory in nature and effect of non-compliance of the provision is envisaged under Rule 8 of the Rules, which provides dismissal of the election petition. He has placed his reliance on two judgments of this Court in Rambharosa v. State of M. P. 1996 (I) MPWN 81 and Lalaram v. Laxman Singh 1996 (11) MPWN 132 and submitted that this petition be allowed and the election petition filed by respondent No. 1 be dismissed with costs.

( 4. ) TO appreciate the contention of the petitioner firstly Rule 3 (2) may be seen, which reads thus: Rule 3. (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.

( 5. ) IN this case, it is not disputed that the copy of the election petition which was served on the petitioner was a Photostat copy of the election petition filed before the Election Tribunal and every page of the election petition was signed by respondent No. 1 Anjana Sharma. The only question which is to be seen is the effect of omission to write attested true copy under her own signature. The Tribunal found that the election petitioner has complied with the provisions substantially and on this omission, the election petition cannot be dismissed. Rule 3 (2) of the Rules provides that the election petitioner shall, accompany alongwith the election petition 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. So far as the supply of true copy of the petition to the respondent is concerned, no doubt the aforesaid provision is mandatory as consequence of this has been given under Rule 8 which provides that for the non-compliance of Rule 3 (2), the election petition shall be dismissed by the specified officer. But proviso of Rule 8 provides that the petition shall not be dismissed under this Rul