1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Election Tribunal dated 22.1.2016 whereby the petitioner’s objection relating to non-compliance of the rule 3(2) of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules 1995, has been rejected.

2. In brief, the respondent No.1 had filed the election petition under section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993 challenging the election of the petitioner to the post of sarpanch and the petitioner had filed an application before the Election Tribunal raising an objection that the copy of election petition along with the list of documents supplied to the petitioner was not authenticated by the respondent No.1 by signing on them as true copy, hence, there was non-compliance of rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1995 and election petition was liable to be dismissed under rule 8. The Election Tribunal by the impugned order has rejected the said application.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the requirement of authenticating the copy of election petition and the documents supplied to the petitioner is a mandatory requirement and since the requirement of rule 3(2) has not been complied with, therefore, the election petition ought to have been dismissed.

4. As against this, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the impugned order.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the Election Tribunal on examination of the record has found that the election petition was signed by the respondent No.1 as well as his advocate. Respondent No.1 had filed the photocopy of the said election petition, the original of which contain the signature of the election petitioner and his advocate and the same was supplied by the Election Tribunal to the petitioner. It has been noted by the Tribunal that since original election petition contains the signature and photo copy of the said signed original petition has been supplied to the petitioner which is the correct true copy, therefore, photocopy was not required to be again signed by the respondent No.1. Same was the position in respect of documents supplied to the petitioner, hence the Election Tribunal has taken the view that the compliance of rule 3(2) has been done.

6. Hence the nature and scope of rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1995 needs consideration which reads as under :-

“[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 petitioner”.

7. The consequence of non-compliance of rule 3(2) is given in rule 8 of the Rules of 1995 which provides that in case of non-compliance of rule 3, the petition shall be dismissed by the specified officer.

8. The above rule 3(2) in clear terms provides that “every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature”.

9. The requirement of the above rule is very clear that the copy of election petition filed for supplying to the respondent must be attested by the petitioner under his own signature. The above rule requires the election petitioner to put his original signature in the copy of the election petition to authenticate the copy to be the true copy of the election petition. The object is that the petitioner must take the responsibility of the copy being a true copy of the original petition by putting his original signature in the copy in token thereof. Therefore, if the original copy of the election petition contains the signature of the election petitioner and its photocopy is taken having the impression of the signature of the petitioner taken from the original without there being the original signature of the election petitioner in the copy of the election petition authenticating it to be the true copy of the ori