The main legal point established in the judgment is that the election petition can only be dismissed summarily when filed without compliance of mandatory provisions of the rules and not on any other ground, and the trial of election petitions must adhere to the procedural powers conferred to the Election Tribunal and the obligation to decide election petitions on merit after examining the grounds mentioned in the petition.

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

1. In the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has called in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 24th March, 2015 passed by the respondent no.3 in Panchayat Election Case No. 26/A-89(1)/2014-15, whereby the election petition filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Rajya Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter in short shall be referred as “Adhiniyam”) has been dismissed summarily on admission itself without notice to the other side on the very first date.

2. Petitioner filed an election petition under Section 122 of the “Adhiniyam” before the respondent no.3 challenging the election of respondent no.4 for the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kosmi, District Balaghat (M.P.). The petition was presented on 24th March, 2015 before the respondent no.3/Specified Officer and on that very day respondent no.3 heard the petitioner on the question of maintainability of the petition and dismissed the election petition stating that the petition is based on the issue that the respondents no. 4 to 7, published defamation letter and circulated to the voters of the villager during the election period. But they had not made any complaint regarding that to the Returning Officer and, therefore, he has no locus to present election petition, accordingly the same is dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary as it is contrary to the provisions of M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practise and Disqualification for Membership) Rule 1995 (hereinafter same shall be referred as Rules) framed under Adhiniyam.

4. Combating the aforesaid submissions, the counsel for respondent no.4 submits that the order passed by respondent no.3 is legal and valid and it is in accordance with the provisions of Rule 25 as the petitioner has failed to show any cause of action for maintaining the Election Petition against him. He relied upon Rule 11 and 21 of the Rules 1995. He submits that in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11 of Rule 1995, the respondent no. 3 was clothed with the power to dismiss the election petition as no cause of action was shown by the election petitioner. He further submits that the grounds stated in the Election Petition are not covered under Rule 21 of the Rules 1995 which engrafts the grounds for declaring the election to be void.

5. Before proceeding further to examine the rival contentions, it is apposite to re-produce the impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 as under:-

“iapk;r fuokZpu ;kfpdk drkZ Jh vksaedkj ekgqGs firk Jh Lo0 fnxEcj ekgqGs fuoklh okMZ ua0 12 rglhG ckGk?kkV tuin iapk;r dksleh }kjk Jh ia0 ixnh’kpUnz frokjh vf/koDrk lfgr mifLFkr gksdj Lo;a ;kfpdk xzke iapk;r dksleh rglhG o ftGk ckGk?kkV varxZr /kkjk 122 iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e 1993 ds rgr ;kfpdk is’k fd;kA **

**2- izLrqr ;kfpdk xzkg~;rk esa fu;r dj ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vf/koDrk ds rdZ Jo.k fd;k x;kA izLrqr ;kfpdk esa vH;fFkZ;ksa ds ;kfpdk ds }kjk frfFk fnukad 20-01-2015 dks izR;FkhZ dz0 3 ,oa 4 us ,d lwpuk ‘khZ”kd okGk ipkZ gs.M fcy@ikWEiysV eqfnzr ,oa izdkf’kr djok;k vkSj nksuksa ifr&iRuh us xzke iapk;r dksleh {ks= esa dksleh ds fuokfl;ksa ds ?kj&?kj tkdj mls forfjr fd;k vkSj xzke dksleh ds leLr iathd`r ernkrkvksa dks mDr ipkZ forfjr dj vihG izLrqr dh xbZ gSA vr,o fjVfuZax vkWfQlj iapk;r pquko ckGk?kkV ds le{k pquko vkpkj lafgrk dk mYya?ku ls lacaf/kr gSA ftldh f’kdk;r DysDVj ,oa ftyk fuokZpu vf/kdkfj;ksa dks izLrqr fd;k tkuk Fkk tks ugha fd;k x;k gS] ;g pquko ;kfpdk dh ifjf/k esa ugha vkrk gSA nLrkostksa dk voGksdu fd;k vihG xzkg~; ;ksX; u gksus ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA“

6. The validity of the order passed by the respondent no.3 has to be examined on the anvil of the facts of the present case and the law governing the field of trial of election petition under the Adhiniyam 1993 and Rules 1995. It is condign to refer certain provisions of Rules:-

“3. Presentat