The court emphasized the importance of deciding legal issues first if they do not require adducing of evidence, to save time for the court and litigants.

SHEEL NAGU, J.

1. Writ jurisdiction of this court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution is invoked praying for the following reliefs:-

(i) Impugned order dated 25.4.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsil and District Morena in Case No. 1/17-18/Election Petition A/89 may be set aside/quashed. Application filed by the petitioner for dismissal of the election petition may kindly be allowed in toto and the aforesaid election petition may be dismissed under Rule 8 of the Rules of 1995 due to non-compliance of Rule 3(1) and (2) of the said rules.

(ii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court thinks appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted in favour of petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

3. The instant petition assails the order dated 25/4/2018 (P/1) by which the Election Tribunal (SDO), Morena while adjudicating the election petition filed by the respondent No.5-Panjab Singh challenging the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Madanbasai Tahsil and District Morena (M.P.) passed an interlocutory order dated 25/4/2018 declining to adjudicate the application preferred by the petitioner raising preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the election petition on the ground of noncompliance of Rule 3(1) and (2) of the M.P. Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules 1995 (for brevity the 1995 Rules) inasmuch as filing of the election petition was neither by the election petitioner in person nor by a person especially authorised in that behalf by the election petitioner and also that copy of the election petition served on the respondent No.5 herein was not attested by the petitioner's own signature to be true copy of the petition.

4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily submitted by relying upon the single bench decisions of this court in Baijulal Verma Vs. Additional Collector, Chhindwara reported in 2009(4) MPLJ 548 and Kamlesh Nut Vs. Commissioner and others reported in 2012 (4) MPLJ 385 that the Election Tribunal was obliged to decide the said preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the election petition raised by the petitioner before adverting to the merits of the election petition and thus could not have deferred the same for a later stage to be adjudicated upon.

4.2 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and the State submit that the election petition was filed before the Tribunal on 23/2/2015 and instead of raising the aforesaid objection as to the maintainability of the election petition at the initial stage of the election trial, the petitioner/returned candidate raised the objection by an application filed after 3 years of filing of the election petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 also submits that delaying tactics are being adopted by the returned candidate/petitioner which are further evident from earlier round of litigation initiated by the respondent No.5 vide W.P.No.7758/2015 where this court had set aside the order of dismissal of the election petition filed by the respondent No.5 on the ground of non- impleadment of all nominated candidates after holding that the Election Tribunal appears to be hand in glove with the returned candidate by dismissing the election petition by applying the provisions of M.P. Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules 1991 to the issue which had arisen after the said Rules were repelled and the 1995 Rules had come into being.

4.3 Respondent No.5 has also pointed out that while allowing the W.P.No.7758/2015, cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the State. Respondent No.5 further submits that the election petition is presently at an advanced stage where the evidence on the part of the election petitioner is closed. It is further submitted that Vakalatnama was duly filed by the election petitioner (respondent No.5) which empowers in generic t