JUDGMENT : Madan Mohan Pd, J. for issuance of a writ quashing the ORDER :of the Election Tribunal constituted under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') contained in Annexure 3'. 2. The facts which have given rise to this application are as following. It appears that an election was held for the post of Mukhiya of Bhadaufa Gram Panchayat in which the petitioner and the second respondent were candidates,' and as a result of the election held, the petitioner was declared elected. Being aggrieved with the result, the second respondent filed an, election petition before the Tribunal challenging the election to be null and void on amongst other the ground that the petitioner had committed corrupt practices. Along with the application he had filed a list of corrupt practices. On being noticed, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and in his written statement raised objection that the petition was not maintainable in view of certain defects of them being that it was not verified is accordance with ORDER :6 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called 'the Code'). This and - some other objections were raised by way of preliminary issues and the Election Tribunal rejected the contention of the petitioner. Hence this application. 3. It appears that both the election petition and the list of corrupt practices filed, were verified. There was, however, one affidavit alone in support of the contents of the election petition alone and it did not refer to the list of corrupt practices. It is- this which has given rise to the present contention on behalf of the petitioner which is that there was no affidavit in support of the list of corrupt practices which is a mandatory requirement of Rule 75(2)(a) of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). Learned counsel contends that in view of the requirement of ORDER :6 Rule 15 of the Code the verification of the list of corrupt practices had to be done before an officer empowered to administer an oath under Section 139 of the Code. 4. It will be relevant to refer to the provisions of law having a bearing on the question. 4. It will be relevant to refer to the provisions of law having a bearing on the question. Rule 75(1) of the Rules inter alia,' lay down that the election petition shall be signed' by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings Sub-rule 2(a) of Rule 75 of the Rules lays down that "the petition shall be accompanied by a list signed and verified in like manner setting forth full particulars of any corrupt or illegal practice which the petitioner alleges, including as full statement as possible as to the names of the parties alleged to have committed any' corrupt or illegal practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice." Rule 77 of the Rules lays down' if there is any failure to comply with Clause (a) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 75 of the Rules, the Election Tribunal shall summarily dismiss the election petition; provided that the petition shall not be dismissed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard" 5. Turning now to ORDER :6 Rule 15 of the Code as amended by this court, it reads thus:- _ "(1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. (2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true. (3) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which" and the place at which It was signed.” 6. Reading the aforesaid provisions it is quite clear that a list of corrupt practice, has to be signed and verified in the same manner as the election petition itself, and further that they have to be signed and verified in the manner as laid down under ORDER :6 Rule 15 of the Code. Reading the aforesaid provisions it is quite clear that a list of corrupt practice, has to be signed and verified in the same manner as the election petition itself, and further that they have to be signed and verified in the manner as laid down under ORDER :6 Rule 15 of the Code. It, further appears that on failure to comply with the provisions of clause (a) to Sub rule (2) of Rule 75 of the rules, the election petition has got to be dismissed; provided of course that before that the election petitioner has to be heard. It follows therefore, from these that if the list of corrupt practices was not verified in, the manner 'as required' by law as stated above, it should have been dismissed by the Tribunal after giving an opportunity to the election petitioner to be heard. 7. In the present case, the infirmity pointed out, as stated earlier, is that there is no affidavit in" support of the list of corrupt practices as required by Rule 15 of ORDER :6 of the Code. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the respondents that the list of corrupt practices forms part of, the election petition itself and the election petition having been supported by an-affidavit, it should be taken that the affidavit is in support of the list of corrupt practices as well. I am afraid, I am unable to accept the latter contention. Rule 75 of the rules lays down clearly that the petition shall be "accompanied by" a list signed and "verified in like manner". It is obvious therefrom that for the purposes of verification the list is not a part of the election petition, but one which accompanies it and again that it has to be separately signed and verified in the same manner as the election petition itself. It cannot, therefore, be said that the affidavit in support of the ejection petition alone can be deemed to be an affidavit in support of the list of, corrupt practices. The two are things apart. The election petition contains the grounds on which the election is challenged. The list of corrupt and illegal practices gives out details of the corrupt and illegal practices committed. the names of parties who committed them the date and place where they were committed etc. The two are things apart. The election petition contains the grounds on which the election is challenged. The list of corrupt and illegal practices gives out details of the corrupt and illegal practices committed. the names of parties who committed them the date and place where they were committed etc. The purpose of law is that somebody should, on affidavit. state about the truth of these allegations contained in the list. That seems to me to be the reason why the list of corrupt and illegal practices is required to be signed and verified in the same manner as the election petition itself. 8. The question, however, remains whether an affidavit is necessary as a part of verification. I had occasion to consider this question in the case of (1) Abdul Qasim Khan V. Naurang Singh and others (C.W.J.C. No. 132 of 1973) disposed of on the 21st of December, 1973, wherein I came to the conclusion that a verification has to be either by solemn affirmation or on oath before an officer appointed to administer an oath under Section 139 of the Code. Thus, I came to the conclusion that the list of corrupt practices has also to be verified in the like manner and that failure to comply with the aforesaid provisions in respect of the proper verification amounts to a non compliance with Sub clause (a) to Sub Rule (2) of Rule 75 of the Rules. This decision came to the notice of a Division Bench of this court in the case of (2) Deo Sharan Mahto V. Ram Bilas Singh (1974 B. L. J. R. 863) and has been approved by the learned Judges. The instant case is covered by this previous decision of mine. 9. It is well settled that if there is no verification in accordance with Rule 15 of ORDER :6 of the Code if there is a verification, but it is so very defective that in the eye of law there is failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 15. of ORDER :6 of the Code, then it is a major defect. See the case of (2) Saratchadra Mandal V. Phani Bhusan Singh and others (A.I.R. 1974 Patna 40). of ORDER :6 of the Code, then it is a major defect. See the case of (2) Saratchadra Mandal V. Phani Bhusan Singh and others (A.I.R. 1974 Patna 40). It is not necessary to refer to other cases relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, namely, the cases of (3) Jadav Gilua V. Suraj Narain Jha and others (1973 P. L. J. R. 24) (4) Syed Azizul Hussain aiias Ajijul Haque V. G. Mishra, Deputy Collector and Election Tribunal Panchayat Election, Motihari and another (B. L. J. R. 494) and (5) Md. Momin Mian and others V. State of Bihar and others (1974 B. L. J. R. 107), which were decisions given by myself and two learned Single Judges of this court. The point is well settled that Rule 77 of the Rules is a mandatory and that failure to comply with the requirement of Rule 75 (2) (a) of the Rules entails dismissal of the election petition. 10. In the present case, therefore it is obvious that the election Tribunal has committed an obvious error of law in rejecting the objection made by the petitioner with regard to the non compliance of Rule 75 (2) (a) of the Rules. The proper course for the Election Tribunal was to dismiss the application after hearing the election petitioner. 11. In the result, the ORDER :of the Tribunal is quashed and it is directed to act in accordance with rule 77 of the Rules viz to dismiss the election petition, since it appears, the election petitioner has already been heard in this case on the objection raised by the present petitioner at a writ issue, accordingly. The application is thus allowed, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no ORDER :as to costs. Application allowed.