A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner/election Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'election Petitioner') has challenged the validity of the impugned order dated 31-5-2010 by which the Election Tribunal has dismissed the election petition of the election Petitioner on account of non-compliance of Rules 3(2) and 8 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred as the Rules).

3. The facts leading to this petition lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that the Petitioner who is a voter has filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal praying to declare the election of Respondent No. 1 on the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bharatpur to be illegal since she was not having requisite qualification to contest the election of the said Gram Panchayat.

4. The election petition was filed on 18-2-2010. On bare perusal of the order sheet of that date, it is gathered that the Respondent No. 1 was directed to be summoned on payment of process fee. Accordingly, summons were issued but returned back unserved. On 15-3-2010, the Election Tribunal directed to issue fresh notice to Respondent No. 1 for the date of hearing 23-3-2010. On this date Counsel for Respondent No. 1 appeared and made a demand to supply one copy of the petition which was supplied to her Counsel. On 19-4-2010 an application was submitted by the returned candidate/Respondent No. 1 raising an objection that the copy of the memorandum of election petition which has been supplied to her is neither signed nor verified by election Petitioner which is in contravention to Rule 3 of the Rules and hence, prayed that the election petition be dismissed. This application was opposed by election Petitioners by filing a written reply. The learned Tribunal allowed the application upholding the objection raised by the returned candidate and held that there is non-compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules. Eventually, the election petition has been dismissed by the impugned order.

5. In this manner, this petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the impugned order.

6. It has been put forth by Shri P.C. Paliwal, learned Counsel for Petitioner that impugned order is ex facie, illegal and contrary to the provisions of law for the simple reason that copy of memorandum of election petition which was supplied to learned Counsel for the returned candidate after she was served in the Court on 23-3-2010 was not required to be signed and verified by the Petitioner. Learned Counsel further submits that copy of memorandum of election petition duly signed and verified by the election Petitioner was submitted along with the memorandum of election petition in the Court at the time of the presentation of the election petition.

7. Learned Counsel by inviting my attention to Rule 9 of the said Rules has contended that if a copy is given to Counsel for Respondent No. 1 later on before the Election Tribunal, the same is not required to be signed and verified by the election Petitioner. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on Division Bench decisions of this Court in Lata Patle v. Smt. Kamlesh Gautam 2008 (1) MPLJ 388.

8. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that it was imperative on the part of the returned candidate/Respondent No. 1 either to show to the Election Tribunal that copy of memorandum of election petition which was served on him along with summons was not duly signed and verified by the election Petitioner or that copy which was sent to her along with summons should have been filed before the Election Tribunal in order to substantiate the objection raised by her in terms of Rule 3. Since this has not been done, it cannot be said that there is noncompliance of Rule 3 of the said Rule.

9. On the other hand, Shri A. D. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 submitted that first or