K.K. Lahoti, J.

This petition is directed against the order dated 29-6-2006 by the S.D.O. Lanji District Balaghat in Election Petition No. 7A/89/04-05 by which the Election Tribunal has dismissed the election petition filed by the Petitioner. This order has been assailed by the Petitioner on following grounds:

i) That the election Petitioner challenged the election of Respondent No. 1 by filing an election petition u/s 122 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 in which serious allegations were made including irregularities during counting and rejection of prayer of the Petitioner for re-counting.

ii) Respondents though opposed the election petition but the Tribunal without following procedure envisaged under Rule 11 of M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) has dismissed the election petition merely on the preliminary objection without framing issues and recording evidence.

iii) That in the case serious questions were involved and without extending an opportunity to the Petitioner to produce evidence in support of his contention the Election Tribunal erred in dismissing the election petition by the impugned order.

Respondent No. 1 who is a returned candidate is represented by a counsel but none is appearing for her today.

Shri Rahul Jain, G.A. appears for the State and made available the records of the Election Tribunal. From the perusal of the record of the Election Tribunal following facts reveal:

a) Election petition was filed on 17-2-2005 and on the same date notices were issued to the Respondents.

b) The Respondent in the election petition was No. 1 Smt. Vidyawati, Respondent No. 2 was Presiding Officer, Booth No. 196 and Respondent No. 3 was Presiding Officer, Booth No. 195.

c) On 28-2-2005 Respondent Vidyawati appeared through her counsel. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were absent and again fresh notices were issued. On 16-3-2005 and on 30-3-2005 notices were issued to the Presiding Officer Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. On 19-4-2005, Defendants No. 2 and 3 appeared. They were supplied copies of the election petition and for the reply the case was fixed. On the same date, later on Election Tribunal fixed the case for arguments on preliminary objections. On 25-4-2005 the reply was filed by S.K. Bajpai and on 28-4-2005 reply was filed by another Presiding Officer. On 11-5-2005 the Presiding Officer directed for the presence of Kotwar who was present at booth No. 196 and on the same date the preliminary arguments were heard. On next date 16-5-2005, the case was fixed for orders and on 24-6-2005, the impugned has been passed.

d) Though there is no reference in the order-sheet in respect of filing of the reply by Respondent No. 1 but it is available on record and it was filed on 30-5-2005.

e) In the case the Tribunal had not fixed the case for recording evidence but it appears that both, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 filed affidavit in support of their contentions along with pleadings.

f) A written extract of preliminary argument is available on pages 69 and 70 of the file, which are concise statements of the preliminary arguments submitted by the parties.

g) The Tribunal considered the case of the Petitioner by the order Annexure P-8 and decided the case not on preliminary objections but finally on merits repelling all the contentions of the Petitioner. This finds place in the order in detail.

The procedure for the trial of the Election Tribunal is envisaged in Rule 11 of the Rules which reads thus:

Procedure before the specified officer and his powers - (1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shall be enquired into by the specified officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits:

Provided that if shall only be necessary for the specified officer to make a memorandum of the evidence of any witness examined by him.

(2) The spec