1. Prayer in the petition is for quashment of order dated 16.8.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Neemuch in Case No.2/C-144/2009-10 whereby election petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Short facts of the case are that in the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chitakheda, which took place on 18.1.2010, Basantilal respondent No.10 was elected as Sarpanch. Elelction petition was filed by the petitioner under section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, wherein the validity of the election of Sarpanch held on 18.1.2010, was challenged. The application was filed by respondent No.10 under rule 3(2) and 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 alleging that copies of the election petition filed by the petitioner ought to have been accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy was to be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. In the application, it was alleged that neither the requisite copies of the election petition were filed by the petitioner nor they are signed as per rule 3, therefore, the petition was dismissed. The application was contested by the petitioner. After hearing the parties, learned counsel for the parties, learned Court below allowed the application filed by respondent No.10 and dismissed the election petition filed by the petitioner against which present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel submits that election petition, which was filed before the Court below bears signture of the petitioner. The election petition has not been dismissed by the learned Court below on the ground that requisite copies have not been filed by the petitioner and some of the copies do not bear the signature of the petitioner. It is submitted that there was substantial compliance, therefore, election petition could not have been dismissed by the learned Court below. For this contention, reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Rajendra Bharti v. Narotam Mishra [ILR (2010) M.P. 1132], wherein preliminary objection of respondent that the copy served on the respondent is not attested as true copy and the same being in violation of section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act. This Court has held that in the absence of complete and total non-compliance of section 81(3) of the Act, election petition cannot be legally dismissed in limine. Learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order passed by the Court below be set aside.

4. Shri C.L. Yadav, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.10 has placed reliance of rules 3 and 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 which reads as under :

“3. Presentation of Election Petition. --

*** *** ***

8. Procedure on receiving petition. -- If the provisions of rule 3 or rule 4 or rule 7 have not been complied with, the petition, shall be dismissed by the specified officers :

Provided that the petition shall not be dismissed under this rule without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.”

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.10 submits that provisions are mandatory in nature. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Dr. Omprakash Soni v. Ashok Kumar Bhargava and others [AIR 1996 M.P. 43], wherein this Court has held that Rules in question are mandatory, failure would lead to summary dismissal of election petition. It was also observed that attestation by Advocate would not save petitioner. Further reliance is placed o