1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of SDO dated 30.3.2016 whereby the election petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. In brief, the petitioner had filed the election petition under section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 challenging the election of the respondent No.2 as Sarpanch of the concerned gram panchayat.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the SDO has committed an error in rejecting the election petition without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to lead the evidence and without framing the issues.

4. As against this, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that the petitioner had not deposited the requisite fee as per rules at the proper place, therefore, the election petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the SDO has dismissed the election petition on the ground that there is no strong proof has been produced in support of the election petition and the petitioner had not produced any oral or documentary evidence in support of the plea taken in the election petition.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the proceedings which were conducted before the SDO and filed as Annexure P-6 which reveals that the SDO had never fixed the case for recording the evidence of the parties, therefore, it was not proper on the part of the SDO to dismiss the election petition on the ground that the petitioner had not produced any oral and documentary evidence. That apart, even the issues were not framed in the matter.

7. So far as the objection of the respondent No.2 that the requisite fee was not deposited at the proper place as per rules, the election petition has not been dismissed on that ground, therefore, that issue need not be examined at this stage which may be raised by the respondent No.2 before the tribunal in accordance with law.

8. This Court in the matter of Lalamadas v. Vidyawatim and others, reported in 2007(1) MPLJ 410, considering the procedure which is to be followed by the election tribunal has held as under :-

4. The procedure for the trial of the Election Tribunal is envisaged in rule 11 of the Rules which reads thus:--

11. 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 specified officer, shall have the powers which are vested in the Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit in respect of the following matters :--

a] Discovery and inspection ;

b] enforcing the attendance of witness, and requiring the“deposit of their expenses;

c] compelling the production of document;

d] examination of witnesses on oath;

e] reception of evidence taken on affidavit and

f] issuing commission for examination of witnesses and summoning and examining suo motu any person whose evidence, appears to him to be material.

The aforesaid provision specifically provides that the enquiry in the election petition shall be as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable to the trial of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure. But in this case after filing of the pleadings the presiding officer heard preliminary arguments and on the basis of this the election petition has been dismissed. Though in the order the Tribunal has referred the evidence filed by the parties and discussed them but without extending any opportunity to the parties to cross-examine on the aforesaid affidavits. Apart from this no order was passed by the Election Tribunal in res