( 1. ) PETITIONER before this Court is an election petitioner. He had challenged the election of respondent No. 2, Prabhu who was declared as elected to the post, of Member of the Zila Panchayat Ratlam.

( 2. ) ELECTIONS to the post of Member of the Zila Panchayat Ratlam were held on January 29, 2005. Respondent No. 2 Prabhu, was declared as a winning candidate. Vide an election petition filed on February 28, 2005 under the provisions of section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evem Gram swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Act), the petitioner challenged the aforesaid election. Vide an order dated July 26, 2005, the election petition filed by the said election petitioner was dismissed holding the same to be barred by limitation.

( 3. ) IT further appears from the record that the order dated July 26, 2005 passed by the Specified Authority (Competent Authority under section 122 of the act) was challenged by the election petitioner under section 91 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. An order dated November 8, 2005 appears to have been passed by the appellate Authority whereby the aforesaid appeal filed by the election petitioner was dismissed by observing that no sufficient cause had been shown for delay in filing the election petition. Thereafter a review/revision petition was filed by the election petitioner against the order dated November 8, 2005. The said review/revision petition has been dismissed by the State Government vide order dated August 21, 2006. In the order dated August 21, 2006, the State government has noticed that the Rules 3 and 5 of the Appeal and Revision Rules as well as section 91 of the Act were not applicable to an election petition. Although, certain observations on merit of the controversy have also been made in the said order but ultimately, the revision petition has been dismissed as not maintainable.

( 4. ) IT is in these circumstances that the election petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition challenging the original order dated July 26, 2005 passed by the Specified Authority.

( 5. ) A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri A. K. Sethi, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2 to the effect that since the election petitioner has not challenged two orders viz. orders dated November 3, 2005 and August 21, 2006 passed by the State Government, therefore, the present petition filed by the election petitioner challenging merely the order dated July 26, 2005 is not maintainable. On that basis Shri Sethi has maintained that the original order dated July 26, 2005 stood merged in the later orders dated November 8, 2005 and august 21, 2006 and therefore, in absence of a challenge to the said orders, the original order could not have been challenged.

( 6. ) I am unable to agree with the aforesaid preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior counsel. A perusal of section 122 of the Act shows that a complete code has been provided for challenging of an election by way of an election petition. The election petition has to be tried in terms of the Madhya pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for membership) Rules, 1995.

( 7. ) SINCE special, specific and distinct rules have been framed for filing an election petition under section 122 of the Act, therefore, neither section 91 of the act providing for an appeal nor the M. P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, have any application to an order passed by the Specified Authority. A perusal of Rule 25 of the Election Petition Rules further shows that the orders/decisions of the Specified Authority are final. If the contention raised by shri Sethi were to be accepted, it would not only be against the spirit of the Rules and the Act but shall also create an additional forum for the winning candidate/election petitioner, to challenge the orders passed by the Specified authority in an election petitio