JUDGMENT Mootham, C.J. - This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were candidates for election to the office of Chairman of a Town Area Committee. The election was held on 1610-1957 and on the following day the second Respondent was declared duly elected. The Petitioner then filed an election petition in which he challenged the validity of the second Respondent's election on a number of grounds. That petition was however dismissed by the Election Tribunal by an order dated 11-9-1958, upon the ground that it had not been presented in accordance with law because, first, it had not been presented by the Petitioner in person and secondly, it was not accompanied by a deposit of Rs. 200 as security as required by the rules. The Petitioner then filed the petition which is now before us in which he questions the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal and prays that its order be quashed by a writ of certiorari, 3. Sub-section (4A) of 8A of the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914, provides that No election of the Chairman shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under this Act. 4. The relevant rules under the Act are 47 and 50 which, so far as they are relevant, read thus: 47.(1) An election petition may be presented by any candidate whose name has been entered in a list Under-rule 12 of the U.P. Town Areas (Conduct of Election of Chairman) Rules, 1953, or whose nomination has been rejected u/R 11 of the aforesaid Rules read with para 22 of the U.P. Town Areas Conduct of Election of Members; Order, 1953. Election petitions will be presented by only those persons who were candidates for an election against which election petition is filed. 50. An election petition will be presented together with a deposit of Rs. 200 as security for costs to the Munsif within whose territorial jurisdiction the Town Area is situated within thirty days from the date on which the election was held; it shall specify the ground or grounds on which the election is questioned and shall contain a summary of the circumstances alleged to justify the election being questioned on such ground or grounds. The facts relating to the presentation of the election petition in the present case are not in dispute. The petition was presented within the prescribed time to the appropriate Munsif by a pleader duly authorised in this behalf by the Petitioner. The petition was accompanied by an application by the Petitioner that he be allowed to deposit Rs. 200 as security with the Central Nazir. That application was allowed by the Munsif and the money was in fact deposited with the Central Nazir on the same day as that on which the petition was presented. 5. The Election Tribunal was of opinion that as the petition, when it was presented to the Munsif, was neither accompanied by a treasury or State Bank receipt for Rs. 200 nor by a tender of this amount in cash there had been a failure to comply with Rule 50. It is clear however that the Petitioner was ready and able to make the requisite deposit on the day on which he presented the petition and that he in fact did deposit the amount with the Central Nazir after having first applied for and obtained the permission of the Munsif to do so. The Petitioner acted both reasonably and in good faith and in bur opinion there was a substantial compliance with the provisions of Rule 50. We think therefore that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the petition on the ground of non compliance with this rule. 6. The second question is more important. It is whether Rule 47(1) makes it obligatory for a petition challenging the election of the chairman to be presented by the Petitioner in person. The Respondent relies upon the words "presented by any candidate" which it is argued, mean and mean only, presentation by a candidate in person. In support of this submission reliance is also placed on the last sentence of the sub rule which lays down that "Election petition will be presented by only those persons who were candidates for an election against which an election petition is filed". In our opinion there is no sufficient ground for placing this restricted interpretation on this sub-rule. We think that the primary object of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 47 is to define and thereby limit, the class of persons who can challenge an election. In our opinion there is no sufficient ground for placing this restricted interpretation on this sub-rule. We think that the primary object of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 47 is to define and thereby limit, the class of persons who can challenge an election. Its purpose is to make clear that the validity of an election can be questioned only by a candidate at that election whose name is on a certain list or whose nomination has been rejected; it does not, in our view, prescribe the manner in which the election petition is to be presented. Unless there is something in an enactment which shows that a certain act must be performed by a particular person, or the nature of the act is itself such that it can be performed only by that person, that act can ordinarily be done by a duly authorised agent. If it had been the intention that a Petitioner must personally present his election petition it would have been a very simple matter for the rule making authority to make provision to that effect and so put the matter beyond doubt; as it has done, for example, in Clause 36 of the U.P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of President and Election Petition) Order 1955, where it is expressly provided that an election petition shall be presented "in person by the Petitioner or, if there are more than one Petitioner, by any one or more of them." That has not been done and we do not consider that Rule 47 requires the Petitioner to present his petition in person. Such a construction may result in a Petitioner who is incapacitated by accident or illness from presenting a petition at all, for it is common ground that the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act have no application to the presentation of a petition under the Town Area Act. If however this view of ours be erroneous and upon a true interpretation the rule requires presentation in person, such a requirement is not in our opinion mandatory but directory only. Colerigde, J., said in Homes v. Russel 9 Dowe 28, quoted in Satyanarayana v. Yamascori Venkata Subbiah AIR 1957 A.P 172 . If however this view of ours be erroneous and upon a true interpretation the rule requires presentation in person, such a requirement is not in our opinion mandatory but directory only. Colerigde, J., said in Homes v. Russel 9 Dowe 28, quoted in Satyanarayana v. Yamascori Venkata Subbiah AIR 1957 A.P 172 . It is difficult sometimes to distinguish between an irregularity and a nullity: but the safest rule to determine what is an irregularity and what is a nullity is to see whether the party can waive the objection; if he can waive it, it amounts to an irregularity; if he cannot, it is a nullity. 7. We think that there can be no doubt that it is open to a Respondent, if he so chooses, to ignore the fact that the petition has not been presented by the Petitioner in person. 8. In the result we are of opinion that the grounds upon which the Tribunal dismissed the petition cannot be upheld. We accordingly allow the petition and direct the issue of a writ quashing the order of the Tribunal dated 11-9-1958. 9. The Petitioner is entitled to his costs which we fix at one hundred rupees.