Sanjay Yadav, J.

1. Shri Paritosh Trivedi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

Shri D.R. Vishwakarma, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Shri S.P. Rai, learned Govt. Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

With consent of learned Counsel for parties the petition is heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 3-5-2010 passed by Respondent No. 3 in an election petition preferred by Respondent No. 1.

3. Election Petition under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhihiyam, 1993 is directed against the election of the Petitioner as Sarpahch of Village Panchayat, Kohka in an election held on 18- 1-2010. On being served, Petitioner herein, who was Respondent No. 1 in the election petition has raised an objection under Rule 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (Rules of 1995 for short) for dismissal of election petition on the ground of non-compliance of provisions of Rules 3,4 and 7.

4. It was stated that the additional copy of election petition was not accompanied with election petition and mat other candidates who contested the election were not impleaded as Respondents. The specified officer before dwelling upon the objections raised by the Petitioner herein in respect of maintainability of election petition for want of compliance of provisions contained in Rules 3, 4 and 7, entertained an application filed by Respondent No. 1 (the election Petitioner) under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Order 1, Rule 10 and allowed her to implead other contesting candidates as Respondents. The Petitioner is aggrieved of this order passed by the Specified Officer.

5. It is contended that compliance of Rules 3, 4 and 7 is mandatory and it must be done at the time when the election petition is filed under Section 122 of the Act of 1993. It is contended that it was beyond the powers of Specified Officer to have proceeded with trial of election petition unless there was a compliance of Rules 3, 4 and 7. It is contended that the impugned order has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

6. Reliance, in support of the proposition that the provisions 6th Rules should have been mandatorily adhered to is placed on judgment in Rama Banjara v. Kanchhedilal 1998(1) MPWN 63 at Page 90. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance on judgment by Division Bench in Sarla Tripathi Smt. v. Smt. Kaushilya Devi and Ors. 2004 (2) JLJ 263 to substantiate the submission that even before expiry of period of limitation no rectification can be sought, if the election petition suffers from basic defects. It is further contended that Rule 8 of Rules 1995 categorically lays down -that if the provisions of Rules 3 or 4 or 7 has not been complied with, the petition shall be dismissed by the Specified Officer. It is contended that since the election petition filed by Respondent No. 1 was suffering from inherent defect because of non impleadment of necessary party, the same ought to have been dismissed at the threshold.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 on his turn has to submit that though Rule 4 requires that all the contesting candidates should be impleaded as party in an election petition, when the same is filed; however, there is no bar to remove the defect within the period of limitation. It is contended that the election of Petitioner was notified on 3-2-2010 and the election petition was filed on 17-2-2010 and an application seeking amendment in the cause title was filed on 3-3-2010. It is contended that since the Applicant was within the period of limitation of 30 days from the date of notification, the Specified Officer was Justified in allowing the same the Petitioner to implead other candidate as Respondent. It is contended that for the said minor defect of non-impleadment of other candidate as Respondent having been cured within the period of limitation within whi