ORDER

1. The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking following reliefs:-

1. That, the impugned order dated 20.6.2023 annexure P/1 passed by the respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed.

2. That, the election petition filed by the respondent No.4 before the respondent No-2 may kindly be dismissed.

3. That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is a returned candidate of Gram Panchayat Devkhedi Janpad Panchayat Ashoknagar, M.P. And respondent No.4-Sushila Bai filed an election petition under section 122 of The Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred as “Act 1993”).

3. Petitioner contested the election of the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat and won with 337 votes. The aforesaid election of petitioner was challenged by respondent No.4 by filing the election petition before SDO, Ashoknagar with the allegation that since petitioner is not member of Scheduled Caste, therefore, her election be declared as null and void.

4. On receiving the election petition, petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC before the Presiding Officer for dismissal of election petition on the ground that election petition is not presented by the respondent No.4 herself and the counsel was not authorized by respondent No.4 in this regard. Copy of election petition was not certified as true copy and election petitioner did not sign the copy as required under Rule 3 (2) of The Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification of Membership) Rules, 1995, (hereinafter referred as “Rules 1995”). The said petitioner raised all those points before the Specified Officer but vide order dated 3.2.2023, the application preferred by the petitioner as returned candidate was rejected. However, petitioner by way of another application raised the objection regarding delay in filing security amount. According to counsel for the petitioner, the election petition was filed by respondent No.4 on 25.7.2022 and security amount was filed on 26.7.2022. He referred the proceedings of Specified Officer (SDO Ashoknagar) in this regard vide Annexure P-2. According to him, said delay is fatal in view of Rule 7 and 8 of Rules 1995.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 supported the impugned order. According to him, such delay caused in filing the security amount is condonable and therefore, SDO has rightly condoned the delay.

7. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record/documents appended thereto.

8. In the case in hand election petitioner (respondent No.4) is facing peculiar situation because she preferred election petition under section 122 of the Act 1993 on 25.7.2022 before Specified Officer but did not deposit the security amount as contemplated under Rule 7 of Rules 1995 and security amount has been deposited on 26.7.2022.

9. Petitioner in the present case is a returned candidate of Gram Panchayat Devkhedi and is aggrieved by rejection of his application preferred under rule 8 of Rules of 1995. Basis of rejection of election petition as per petitioner is non-compliance of Rule 7 of Rules 1995.

10. Therefore, to bring factual and legal clarity, it is apposite that Rule 7 and 8 of Rules 1995 is reproduced for ready reference:-

7. Deposit of security.

At the time of presentation of an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit with the specified officer a sum of Rs. five hundred as security. Where the election of more than one candidate is called in question, a separate deposit of an equivalent amount shall be required in respect of each such returned candidates.

8. Procedure on receiving petition.

If the provisions of Rule 3 or Rule 4 or Rule 7 have not been complied with, the petition, shall be dismissed by the specified officers :Provided that the petition shall not b