Judgment :- 1. The order of the Principal Munsiff, Alleppey, (Ext. P4) in I.A.No. 2835 of 1980 in O. P. (Elec.) No. 85 of 1979 is impugned by the petitioner who was declared elected as a member of the Pulincoonnu Panchayat from Ward No 2 in the election held on 18-9-1979. The validity of his election was challenged before the learned Munsiff by the 1st respondent under S.32 of the Panchayats Act and R.3 and 5 of the Kerala Panchayats (Decision of Election Disputes) R.1963 (for short the "rules of 1963"). 2. The petitioner contended before the learned Munsiff that the election petition presented by the 1st respondent was not maintainable for the reason that all the candidates whose nominations bad been accepted by the Returning Officer were not impleaded and the petition was therefore liable to be dismissed in terms of R.5(8) of the Rules of 1963. One of the issues framed by the learned Munsiff was as regards the maintainability of the election petition. The present petitioner thereupon filed I A No 2835 of 1980 praying that the issue regarding maintainability be tried preliminarily The election petitioner did not raise any objection to it. The present petitioner produced before the Munsiff an attested copy of the original certificate said to have been issued by the Returning Officer showing that nominations of 7 persons had been accepted by the officer. However the Munsiff held that the Returning Officer had no authority to issue an attested copy after the declaration of the result of the election For that reason the Munsiff refused to act on the attested copy and held that the question regarding the maintainability could not be tried preliminarily and that it would be tried along with the main issues. 3. The 1st respondent's (election petitioner's) counsel Shri Varghese Kalliath submits that the Returning Officer had no authority to issue an attested copy of the original certificate. Such copy, counsel says, was not legal evidence on the basis of which the Munsiff could be invited to render a decision. He therefore submits that it is only proper that relevant evidence on that issue should be adduced along with the evidence on the merits of the case under the other issues. 4. Such copy, counsel says, was not legal evidence on the basis of which the Munsiff could be invited to render a decision. He therefore submits that it is only proper that relevant evidence on that issue should be adduced along with the evidence on the merits of the case under the other issues. 4. As far as I can see, the only question that is relevant to the issue regarding maintainability is whether or not nominations of 7 persons had in fact been accepted by the Returning Officer If there were 7 candidates whose nominations had been accepted, it is imperative that all of them were impleaded before an election petition could be entertained. The intention of the rule-making authority was not to allow any election petition to be entertained by the Election Tribunal unless it was presented in the manner prescribed under the relevant rules. One of the important requirements is what is stated under R.5. Sub-rule (3) of that rule reads: "A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition all the candidates who were duly nominated at the election other than himself if he was so nominated." Sub-rule (8) of the same rule says that "if the provisions of sub-rules (3) of this Rule are not complied with, the Munsiff shall dismiss the petition." The Rules, according to me, are imperative and failure to strictly comply with them will necessarily mean rejection of the election petition for that reason. 5. However, Shri Kalliath says that, unless a candidate was validly nominated, the Rules of 1963 were not attracted and he was not required to be impleaded. The acceptance of his nomination could not have been duly made, he says, unless the nomination was validly presented and validity accepted as required under the Kerala Panchayats (Election of Members) R.1962 (for short, "the Rules of 1962"). R.12 and 16 of these rules refer to the manner in which nominations have to be made and accepted. Any nomination of a candidate which has not been made or accepted in terms of the Rules of 1962 would not be a validly accepted nomination; he would not be a valid candidate; and his election would not therefore be valid. 6. These are matters touching the merits of the case concerning validity. They have to be determined by the trial of the main issues. 6. These are matters touching the merits of the case concerning validity. They have to be determined by the trial of the main issues. They are not relevant to the preliminary question as to whether the petition has been duly presented in accordance with the Rules of 1963. The preliminary question is not whether the acceptance of nominations had been validly made (that is a question touching the merits) but whether there were candidates whose nominations had been duly accepted, but not impleaded as parties to the election petition 7. The expression "duly nominated" as a candidate within the meaning of R.2 of the Rules of 1963 means a candidate whose nomination has been accepted in formal compliance with the requirements. The validity of such formal compliance is not relevant to the preliminary question which is only concerned with due acceptance, and not with its validity. The question whether or not there has been a valid compliance with the requirement, i. e., whether by fraud or mistake or by other vitiating circumstances, the acceptance of a nomination is invalid, does not arise on the preliminary issue Important and significant as that basic question is, it has no relevance to the preliminary question as to whether all the candidates have been impleaded as required under R.5 of the Rules of 1963. 8. This means that if there were 7 candidates as alleged, and all of them have not been impleaded as parties, the election petition is not maintainable. This question has to be determined on evidence. The records showing the acceptance of the nominations of the concerned candidates are the relevant evidence. Whether the Returning Officer was authorised to issue attested copies of the original is, in my view, besides the point, although a copy may not be reliable evidence if its authenticity is in question. The original certificate of the Returning Officer, if he is competent to issue the same, will be relevant. The records showing the names of the candidates and other particulars displayed at the time of the election would be relevant. So would any other document or deposition on the point. These are matters pertaining to the preliminary issue. It is fair that the parties are given an opportunity to adduce evidence on that question. 9. Shri Kalliath agrees that there was a need for a preliminary trial of the issue. So would any other document or deposition on the point. These are matters pertaining to the preliminary issue. It is fair that the parties are given an opportunity to adduce evidence on that question. 9. Shri Kalliath agrees that there was a need for a preliminary trial of the issue. Rightly his client did not therefore object to the present petitioner's application for a preliminary trial. He says that the issue was preliminarily tried, as the order shows, but the Munsiff did not come to a finding on it. The objection which the election petitioner now has is to a re-trial of that issue preliminarily. This I think is a technical objection. Not having objected to a trial of the issue preliminarily in the first place, a re-trial of the same issue preliminarily, in the absence.of a finding on that issue, is, I think, desirable and cannot be validly resisted. Ext. P4 shows that the Munsiff proceeded to try the issue preliminarily, but did not complete the trial or reach a finding. 10. The evidence regarding the preliminary issue would not in my view have any bearing on the merits of the election case. Such evidence would not be common to the evidence which will be relevant to the main issues. But a decision on the preliminary issue against the election petitioner would conclude the matter and his challenge against the election would fail. It should rightly be so, if it were found that the requirements of R.5 of the Rules of 1963 have not been complied with by the election petitioner. 11. An election duly held cannot be lightly taken. Public interest requires that the result of that election is not lightly challenged. He who disputes the validity of election must approach the Tribunal in the manner permitted by the law. Non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the law is fatal to an election petition. 12. The election petitioner must first prove that he has approached the learned Munsiff strictly in accordance with the requirements of the law. Only then can he be heard on the merits of his challenge. The question at this stage is not whether the election is valid, but whether the challenge against the validity of the election has been properly made. That is the question which must be decided before the merits are examined. Only then can he be heard on the merits of his challenge. The question at this stage is not whether the election is valid, but whether the challenge against the validity of the election has been properly made. That is the question which must be decided before the merits are examined. That is the question which has been unfortunately evaded by the learned Munsiff. Accordingly I direct him to decide the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue after giving the parties due opportunity to be heard, and to adduce further evidence on it, if they so wish. With this direction the Original Petition is allowed. No costs.