Judgment 1. The petitioner was elected as a Mukhiya of Naudharia Gram Panchayat in the district of Gaya in an election which was held on 4-6-1978. Respondent No. 3 Ram Briksha Yadav filed an election petition in the Court of Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gaya challenging the election of the petitioner. The election petition was numbered as Case No. 16 of 1978-79. The petitioner filed an objection that the election petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of R.75 of the Bihar Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1959 . The principal ground was that the election petition had not been verified in accordance with O.6 R.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This objection was taken up as a preliminary ground by the Election Tribunal and was overruled by an order dated 13-3-1980, contained in Annexure 1. The petitioner has challenged this order in this writ application and has prayed that the same may be quashed. 2. The objection of the petitioner was that the verification of the election petition was not in accordance with O.6. R.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it was not accompanied with an affidavit as required by Patna amendment. The Election Tribunal has stated that Patna amendment did not exist after the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure by the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 1976. According to the Election Tribunal it is no more necessary to file any affidavit along with verification. 3. Mr. Jyoti Narayan learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that O.6 R.15 was not amended by the Amendment Act of 1976 and the Patna amendment not being inconsistent with the provisions of the principal Act still exists and cannot be said to have been repealed. 3. Mr. Jyoti Narayan learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that O.6 R.15 was not amended by the Amendment Act of 1976 and the Patna amendment not being inconsistent with the provisions of the principal Act still exists and cannot be said to have been repealed. Learned counsel has referred to S.97 of Amendment Act of 1976 which reads as under : "97(1) Any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or a High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except in so far as such amendment or provision is consistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed." Order 6 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus : "15(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 paras 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." By the Patna amendment O.6 R.15(1) was substituted by the following provisions :- "Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, the facts stated in every pleading shall be verified by solemn affirmation or on oath of the party or of any of the parties pleading or of some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case, before any officer empowered to administer oath under S.139 of the Code." This provided that the facts stated in every pleading shall be verified by solemn affirmation or on oath of the party etc. before any officer empowered to administer oath. The question is whether this Patna amendment was inconsistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by 1976 Amendment Act. I do not think that there is any inconsistency. before any officer empowered to administer oath. The question is whether this Patna amendment was inconsistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by 1976 Amendment Act. I do not think that there is any inconsistency. What the Patna amendment provides is that the verification must be on oath. That cannot be said to be inconsistent with O.6 R.15 of the principal Act. The Patna amendment, therefore, cannot be said to have been repealed by the Amendment Act of 1976. 4 Rule 71(1) of the Bihar Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1959 provides that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and shall, where necessary, be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively. It 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. If there is any failure to comply with the provisions of R.71(1) the election petition is liable to be summarily dismissed under R.77. The verification has to be made on oath as required by the Patna amendment. In the present case the admitted position is that there is no affidavit in support of the verification which is a major defect. The election petition was, therefore, liable to be dismissed only on this ground. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms was wrong in overruling this objection of the petitioner. The result is that this application is allowed, the order dated 13-3-1980 contained in Annexure 1 is set aside and the election petition is held to be not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs.