1. The petitioner along with respondents No.1 to 8 contested election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchyat, Muwala, Tahsil, Sitamau, District Mandsaur. The election was held on 9.2.2015 and the Returning Officer declared respondent No.1 elected as Sarpanch. The petitioner filed election petition on 5.3.2015 challenging the election of respondent No.1. The election petition was presented before the prescribed authority on 5.3.2015 who has fixed the date for arguments on admission on 12.3.2015. On 12.3.2015 and 16.3.2015, the arguments could not be taken place. On 17.3.2015, counsel Shri G. S. Rathore, appeared and argued on admission and the Court has admitted the petition and directed to pay process fee for issuance of notice to the respondent. Thereafter, respondent No.1 appeared on 8.4.2015 and on 15.4.2015, he filed an application dated 8.4.2015 for dismissal of the election petition for non-compliance of mandatory provision of rule 3 of Panchyat (Election Petition Corrupt Practices and Disqualification of Membership) Rules, 1995. He has alleged that the election petitioner has not signed the election petition as true copy/certified copy and additional copy given for notice to the respondent were also not signed by the petitioner himself as true copy. The petitioner filed the reply to the said application by submitting that he has signed the election petition and all the copies as true copy.

2. The SDO, vide order dated 27.4.2015 upheld the objection taken by respondent No.1 and dismissed the election petition for non-compliance of rule 3(2), of the Rules, 1995, hence the present writ petition.

3. Shri Abhishekh Tugnawat, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned cannot be sustained as he himself admitted the petition after being satisfied that the election petition was filed in accordance with the rules, 3, 4 and 7 of the Election Rules, 1995, therefore, he has no right to dismiss the petition later on for non-compliance of rule 3. He has further submitted that the petitioner has signed the election petition, which is reflected from Annexure P-1, which is certified copy issued by Tahsildar, Sitamau, in which, name, signature, place and date is reflected.

In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the order dated 3.8.2016 of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.4181/2015 (Brajrajsingh

s/o Mangusing v. Padamsingh s/o Roopsingh Chouhan and others). Placing reliance over the aforesaid order, he has further submitted that even if there was defect, learned authority could have given opportunity to cure the same and if the petitioner fails to remove the defects despite opportunity, then the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Shri K. K. Tiwari, counsel for the respondent submits that learned authority after perusing the record and under the provision of Election Rules, 1995 has rightly dismissed the election petition. The conditions are mandatory in nature and if the same has not been followed, it lead to dismissal of the petition. He has placed reliance over the order delivered in the case of Rakesh v. Returnign Officer, reported in 2012(III) MPWN 121 and Uday Singh v. Himmat Singh and others, reported in 1999(1) JLJ 200.

5. At the outset, it is submitted that copy of election petition filed as Annexure P-1 is certified copy issued by the Tahsildar, Sitamau, which reflects that each and every page of the election petition is signed by the petitioner. Election petition was presented by the petitioner himself. There is verification also signed by the petitioner, therefore, the main copy of the election petition which was filed before the SDO was in compliance of the rule 3.

6. So far as the numbers of copies filed along with the main election petition for service to the respondent are concerned, they are required to be signed by the petitioner to be a true copy of the petition. All the copies have been dispatched to the respondent and were not avai