1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ appeal is heard finally.

2. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 6/2/2012 passed by the Writ Court in WP 4946/2010.

3. Respondent No. 4 Bhavichand questioned the election of the appellant to the post of Sarpanch. For the aforesaid purpose, he filed an election petition in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, [Hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1995”]. He filed the election petition before the Prescribed Authority under his signature, but copies of the election petition which were sent to the appellant and other respondents were photo copies of the original which was filed before the Authority. Present appellant in his reply had raised an objection that copy which was served upon him was not signed and certified by the election petitioners (respondent No.4), hence, prima facie, the election petition is liable to be dismissed. The Prescribed Authority (Sub Divisional Officer) had held that photo copy of the original election petition was served on the appellant which was not certified by the election petitioner (respondent No.4), hence, there was violation of Rules of 1995 and dismissed the election petition.

4. The learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer on the ground that the appellant filed reply before the Tribunal and photo copy of the original petition was served on the appellant, hence, there was substantial compliance of the Rules. It is further observed by the Writ Court that the purpose of the rules is that true copy is served on the respondent so he could effectively make out a case in the written statement and prepare his defence. Because the written statement was filed and copy which was served on the appellant was the same which was filed before the Tribunal, hence, there was substantial compliance of the rules and, therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the election petition.

5. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1995 reads as under :

“3.Presentation of election petition.

(1) An election petition shall be presented to the specified Officer during the office hours by the person making the petition, or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition.

(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.”

6. Thus, Rule 3 prescribes a procedure of presentation of the election petition. Rule 3(2) specifically prescribes that every election petition shall be accompanied by as many as 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. Thus, the aforesaid Rule mandates that copy must be attested by the election petitioner under his own signature.

7. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1995 further prescribes the procedure on receiving the petition which thus reads :

“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.”

8. From the aforesaid Rules, it is clear that if the provisions of Rule 3 are not complied with, the election petition shall be dismissed.

9. Whether the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1995 are mandatory or directory, similar requirement was there in section 89(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone, AIR 1980 SC 303, while interpreting the provisions whether mandatory or directory, has held as un