At the last general election of the State Legislative Assembly of Assam held in 1983, the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 contested as candidates from Dalgaon Legislative Consti­tuency. The respondent 1 secured 15605 Votes, the petitioner secured 14051 and the respondent 2 secured 3443 votes. A' such, the respondent 1 was duly declared elected to the Assam Legis­lative Assembly from Dalgaon Constituency on 22nd February, 1983. The petitioner has challenged the election of the respondent 1 on various grounds in this Court. 2. The notice of the election petition has been served on t-ach of the respondents and the respondent it SyeJi Angara Taimur, has filed an application dated 16th June, 1983 for dismi­ssal of the petition under Section 86 (1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (the Act, for short) stating that the election petition was not presented in the manner and method prescribed for the presentation of an election petition under Sections 80, SUA and 81 of the Act and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 that the Rule 1 of Chapter VIII-A of the Rules of the Gauhati High Court, which provides that an election petition may be presented to the Stamp Reporter of the High Court, is vio-iative of Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the Act and Rule I of Chap­ter V1II-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules is arbitrary, illegal and null and void, that the election petition was not presen­ted or filed by the petitioner in person, or by his recognised agent or by his counsel; that on 8th April, 19-i3, a Bandh for 7 (seven) hours was called in the State of Assam and on 8th April, 1983 the functioning of the High Court was affected by the said Bandh all as except for a few Hon'ble Judges, no office employee of the High Court could attend his duties in the. sections and the Fi­ling Section was closed after the door was initially opened for about an hour or so in the morning; that on 8th April, 1983, due to the said Bandh call the Stamp Reporter-cum-Commissioner of Oaths did not attend work and in fact he did not sign the Daily Attendance Register along with other assistants in his section. sections and the Fi­ling Section was closed after the door was initially opened for about an hour or so in the morning; that on 8th April, 1983, due to the said Bandh call the Stamp Reporter-cum-Commissioner of Oaths did not attend work and in fact he did not sign the Daily Attendance Register along with other assistants in his section. It is also stated that the filing register shows that no filing was recorded on 8th April, 1983 and although the records of the pre­sent election petition shows that the affidavit of the election petitioner was sworn and he was identified on 8th April, 1983 at 1 P.M.; and it bears the seal of the High Court dt 8th April 1983 but this position is not correct in view of the fact stated above. The respondent I has further stated that the Filing Section remained closed at the relevant time, namely at I P.M. on 8th April, 1983 and the report of the Stamp Reporter was made on 11th April, 1983 but the filing register records the filing of the election petition only as on 13th April 1983, vide tender No. 2361/39 and the filing register does not show that the election petition was presented on 8th April 1983 and therefore the elec­tion petition is barred by limitation under Section 81 of the Act, 3. Thereafter six preliminary issues have been framed and the contesting parties have adduced evidence. The issues framed are as follows : - (1) Whether Rule 1 of Chapter VIII A of the Gauhati High Court Rules which provides for presentation of the elec­tion petition before the Stamp Reporter of the High Court is ultra vires Article 329 (b) of the Constitution and Sec­tion 169 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 a& amended ? (2) Whether the said rule which provides for presenta­tion of the petition before the Stamp Reporter of the: High Court is void, being violative of Sections 80, 80A, and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended ? (4) Whether the presentation of the election petition before the Stamp Reporter of the High Court is in com­pliance with the provision of Section 81 of the Act ? If not, whether the petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Act ? (4) Whether the presentation of the election petition before the Stamp Reporter of the High Court is in com­pliance with the provision of Section 81 of the Act ? If not, whether the petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Act ? (4) Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed not being presented within time, as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (a) inasmuch as the petition was not presented on 8th April, 1983 as alleged in paragraphs 15 to 21 of the Written Statement of Respondent No. 1, and (b) inasmuch as the pe­tition has not been filed within 45 days from the date of election of the Respondent No. 1 to 68, Dalgaon Assem­bly Constituency ? (5) Whether the election petition was presented by the candidate, petitioner, in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ? If not, whether the petition is liable to be dismissed un­der Section 68 of the Act, 1951 ? (6) Whether there has been non-compliance of sub-sec­tion (3) of Section 81 of the Act, 1951, inasmuch as no copy of the challan showing deposit of Rs. 2,000/- as security was served along with the true copy of the petition on the respondent No. 1, as mentioned in paragraph 17 of the election petition. If so, whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Act, 1951 ? 4. Re : Issues 1 -,2 and 3 : - Rule 1 of Chapter VIII-A of the Gauhati High Court rules runs : - "An Election petition under Section 80 A of the Represen­tation of People Act may be presented duly verified in the form prescribed under Sections 82 and 83 of the said Act. before the Stamp Reporter of this Court with a Court-fee of Rs. 600 affixed thereon, within 45 days from the date of election of the retur­ned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidates at the election and the dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates. before the Stamp Reporter of this Court with a Court-fee of Rs. 600 affixed thereon, within 45 days from the date of election of the retur­ned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidates at the election and the dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates. Every such petition shall be accompa­nied by : (a) as many copies thereof as there are respondents men­tioned in the petition together with one extra copy, all the copies being fully attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition and as many envelopes as there are respondents bea­ring requisite postage stamps to enable service to be effected by registered post with acknowledgement due; (b) as many printed forms of notices, duly rolled in, as there are respondents; (c) an affidavit in support of the contents of the petition as prescribed in Rule 83 (c) of the aforesaid Act where necessary, and (d) a chalan showing the deposit of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) into the State Bank of India, Gauhati Branch in favour of the Registrar of this Court, as security for the costs of the petition. Provided that such deposit in respect of petition to be filed in the Benches at Kohima, Lakphal and Agartala may be made in the State Bank of Kohima, Imphal and Agartala, as the case maybe, in favour of the Deputy Registrar of the Bench concer­ned. Note (1) - The petition shall be legibly type-written or printed in the English language, on durable fools cape paper or other pa­per similar to it in size and quality, book wise, one side of the paper, with not more than 20 or less than 18 lines, of about 10 words in each line, on each page and with an inner margin of about an inch and a quarter-wide. Note (II) - Any petition which is presented out of time and without any of the above mentioned requisites duly satisfied shall Forthwith be returned by the Stem Reporter for refilling. Mr. N. M. Lahiri, learned counsel for the respondent 1, has sub rioted that the Rule prescribing for presentation of the election petition to the Stamp Reporter is violative of Article 329(b) and Sections 80t 80A and 81. He has submitted that Section 81 provides that an election petition shall be presented to the High Court. Mr. N. M. Lahiri, learned counsel for the respondent 1, has sub rioted that the Rule prescribing for presentation of the election petition to the Stamp Reporter is violative of Article 329(b) and Sections 80t 80A and 81. He has submitted that Section 81 provides that an election petition shall be presented to the High Court. Under Article 216, every High Court shall consist of a Chief justice and such other Judges as the President may from time to time deci­ded it necessary to appoint. The learned counsel has also sub­mitted that the expression 'consist of means 'composed of.' There­fore, it excludes other Officer's of the High Court other than the Chief Justice and other Judges and that the High Court means full Court and in certain cases the Chief Justice alone. Keeping in view the non-obstinate Clause in Art. 329(b) of the Consti­tution and the provision of Section 81, the election petition must be presented to the Chief Justice or to a Judge of the High Court. Therefore, the Rule which provides for presentation to the Stamp Reporter is against provisions in Art. 329(b) and Sections 80, 80A, and 81. 5. My attention has been drawn to a series of decisions of the Supreme Court, in N. P. Ponnuswjmi vs. Returning Officer ( AIR 1952 SC 64 ), Baru Ram vs. Smt. Prasanni ( AIR 1959 SC 93 ), Krishan Gopal vs. Prakashchandra ( AIR 1974 SC 209 ), JIumumdev vs. Lalit Narain ( AIR 1974 SC 480 ), Satya Narain vs. Dhuja Ram (AIR 1974 SC U) Sarifuddin vs. Abdul Gani (AIR 1980 to 303), Jyoti Basu vs. Devi Ghosal ( AIR 1982 SC 983 ), M. Karunanidhi vs. R. V. Wanda (1983(1) SCC 473 : AIR 1983 SC 558 ). A close reeling and analysis of the decision of the Supreme Court, in short, shows that where a right or liability is created by a special sta­tute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, and remedy provided by the statute must be strictly followed or availed of. The right to vote or stand as a candidate for an election is not a civil right but a creature of statute or special law and it must be subject to limits imposed by it. The Act has furnished a com­plete Code for challenging an election and the election must be challenged in the manner provided under the Act. The right to vote or stand as a candidate for an election is not a civil right but a creature of statute or special law and it must be subject to limits imposed by it. The Act has furnished a com­plete Code for challenging an election and the election must be challenged in the manner provided under the Act. The concept of common law right and equity is and must remain alien or stra­nger to the election law or election dispute. However, the Sup­reme Court has not held that an election petition shall be presen­ted to the Chief Justice or to a Judge of the High Court. 6. If the proposition of the learned counsel as already sta­ted is well founded, the Rule will be void. It is therefore, to find out whether an election petition shall be presented as contended. For the purpose of trial, sub-section (2) of Section 80A has specified the "instrumentality through which the juris­diction of the High Court to try an election petition shall be exercised, that is the Judge or one of the Judges who has or have been assigned by the Chief Justice. But Section 8 has not provided any procedure for the purpose of presentation of an election petition. In other words, Section 81 has not speci­fied the 'instrumentality' through which an election petition is to be received. Therefore the 'instrumentality' through which election petition is to be received is to be traced out. 7. The High Court has power to frame Rules as provided under Article 225 of the Constitution. Section 117 also provi­des that the costs and security for costs of the petition are to be deposited in accordance with the Rules of the High Court. The High Court has framed the Rules under Article 225 and/ or other provisions enabling in this behalf prescribing proce­dure for presentation of an election petition filed under Section 80A. In the Rules it has been provided that an election petition may be presented to the Stamp Reporter. These Rules are not framed un­der any provision of the Act. The Rule is rot inconsistent with the provisions in Section 81 as the Section 81 has not provided the 'instrumentality' to whom an election petition is to be presen­ted under Section 81. These Rules are not framed un­der any provision of the Act. The Rule is rot inconsistent with the provisions in Section 81 as the Section 81 has not provided the 'instrumentality' to whom an election petition is to be presen­ted under Section 81. Section 81 also does not provide or speci­fy that the petition shall be presented to the Chief Justice or a Judge of the High Court. In M. Karunanidhi (supra) (1983) SCC 473 AIR 1983 SC 558 , the Supreme Court observed : "There are different sets of rules framed by different High Courts under Article 225 of the Constitution regu­lating the practice and procedure to be observed in all the matters coming before the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 80A of the Act;" Although the above observation of the Supreme Court, does not relate to the proposition which is under consideration in the present case, it has its own value and it reinforces the above view of mine. 8. The High Court is a legal entity. It consists of not only the Chief Justice and other Judges but also Officers of various departments. When the Stamp Reporter receives the election petition or the election petition is presented to the Stamp Reporter he does not do it as a delegate of the High Court. The Stamp Reporter is a limb of the High Court and not a delegate as the Stamp Reporter is encrusted to perform his duties under the rules. By framing the Rules, the High Court has not par­ted itself with the power to act under the Act. The Chief Justice is the Head of the body. The Judges and other Officers are limbs or parts of the body (High Court). It is therefore concluded that the said Rules are not inconsistent with the Article 329 (b) and the provisions of Section 81 or any other provisions of the Act. 9. For the foregoing the reasons contentions of the Respon­dent that the Rule of this High Court prescribing for presenta­tion of an election petition to the Stamp Reporter is in violation of Article 329 (b) and Section 80, 80A and 81 and that the petition is to be presented to the Chief Justice or a Judge of the High Court must fail. As such, issues 1, 2 and 3 are decided in favour of the petitioner. As such, issues 1, 2 and 3 are decided in favour of the petitioner. However it is made clear that this decision relates only to the part of the Rule prescribing for pre­sentation of an election petition to the Stamp Reporter, and not other parts of the Rules- The counsel also has not assailed the other parts of the rules although some parts of the Rules have not been happily worded. 10. Re : Issue No. 4 : By whom an election petition is to be presented ? Mr. Lahiri has submitted that an election petition must be presented by the candidate himself though the word, 'himself' or 'personally' have not been incorporated in the body of the Section 81. Le­arned counsel has drawn my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in Sheodan Singh ( AIR 1969 SC 1024 ) and another decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Romania (56 ELR 174, AIR 1978 NOC 182). 11. In Sheodan ( AIR 1968 SC 1024 ), the Supreme Court has held that the election petition presented by an Advocate's clerk in the immediate presence of the candidate to the Regis­trar of the High Court, is in substance though not in form, it was presented by the candidate himself. Full facts of the case are not in judgment. However, the decision shows that if the clerk was not authorised to present the election petition, the presence of the candidate himself was a valid presentation under Section 81, or, if the clerk was authorised to present the petit ion under the High Court Rules, the presence of the candidate implied that an election petition must be presented by the candidate himself. Be that as it may, the decision of the Supreme Court shows that presentation of an election petition is not a mere or idle formality. 12. In Ramanlal (AIR 1978 NOC 182 56 ELR 174), the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that where the manner of presentation is prescribed in the election law, its scope can­not be extended or enlarged by importing into the provisions something from the general law. Therefore, the presentation of the election petition ought to have been made by the candidate himself. Although the words 'himself' or 'personally' have not been incorporated in the body of the Section 81, the intention of the legislature is clear. Therefore, the presentation of the election petition ought to have been made by the candidate himself. Although the words 'himself' or 'personally' have not been incorporated in the body of the Section 81, the intention of the legislature is clear. Is the view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court correct ? A reading of Article 329 (b) with Sections 81,82,83 and 117 shows that the manner of presentation of an election petition is provided. In the series of the cases of the Supreme Court referred to above, the Supreme Court has held that the common law and equity are alien or foreign to the election dispute and that the Act has furnished a complete Code for challenging an election and the election must be challenged in the manner provided under the Act. Under Section 81, the elect­ion petition may be presented by the candidate at an election. In A. Madan Mohan Vs Kalavakunta Chandrasekhara. AIR 1984 SC 871 , the Supreme Court observed : It is a well settled principle of interpretation of sta­tute that wherever a statute contains stringent provisions they must be literally and strictly construed so as to pro­mote the object of the Act. As extracted above this Court clearly held that if the arguments of the appellant (in that case) were to be accepted, it would be stretching and straining the language of Sections 81 and 82 and we are in complete agreement with the view taken by this Court which has decided the issue once for all.'' The decision of the Supreme Court reveals that the word 'candidate' is to be interpreted literally and strictly to promote the object of the Act. As such, an advocate cannot be said to be a candidate, under the Act. In view of the discussion above, I respectfully agree with the conclusion reached by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and I hold that the election petition must i be presented by the candidate himself. 13. The next question which arises for consideration is whether PW 3, Buzarbarua, Commissioner of Oaths-cum-Stamp Reporter, was present on 8th April 1983. The petitioner examined 4 (four) witnesses, namely petitioner himself (PW 1), K. V, Gopalachari (PW 2), Buzarbarua (PW 3), and Borthakur Advo­cate (PW 4). PW, Gopalachari, was the Deputy Registrar (J) of the High Court at the relevant time. The petitioner examined 4 (four) witnesses, namely petitioner himself (PW 1), K. V, Gopalachari (PW 2), Buzarbarua (PW 3), and Borthakur Advo­cate (PW 4). PW, Gopalachari, was the Deputy Registrar (J) of the High Court at the relevant time. His statement as PW2 was that although there was a Bandh call on 8th April 1983, he attended the office. There was sitting of a Division Court in Court No. 1. On that day, as the Bench Clerk and the Ste­nographer did not attend the Court, he wrote Orders which were dictated in Court No. 1. When he was in the office of the Registrar (J), Barthakur, Advocate, (PW4) entered into the office of the Registrar (J) at about 11.30 A.M. along with another per­son and told him that they had come to file an election peti­tion, but he could not find the Stamp Reporter, Buzarbarua (PW 3) and they gave the original election petition to him in the office of the Registrar (J). He telephoned Mr. Saikia, Deputy Registrar (A) for sending Buzarbarua (PW 3) as the last date for filing the election was on 8th April 1983. He also requested Barthakur (PW 4) to wait for some time as Buzarbarua (PW 3) was expected to come soon to the High Court. After some time, when he was in his office, Buzarbarua (PW 3) entered into his office and he handed over the original election petition to Buzarzarua PW 3 to do the needful. PW 3 Buzarzarua who was the Stamp Reporter-cum-Commissioner of Oath stated that on 8th April, 1983, he could not come to the office due to Bandh call. He, however, came to the High Court at about 12.30 hours as Mr. Saikia informed him that the Deputy Registrar (J) had telephoned Mr. Saikia to send hi Tithe office to attend an urgent duty relating to an urgent petition. He went to the High Court as directed by Mr. Saikia and went to the office of the Deputy Registrar (J) at about 12.30 hours. The Deputy Registrar (J) handed over the original election petit­ion to him asking him to do the needful. Saikia to send hi Tithe office to attend an urgent duty relating to an urgent petition. He went to the High Court as directed by Mr. Saikia and went to the office of the Deputy Registrar (J) at about 12.30 hours. The Deputy Registrar (J) handed over the original election petit­ion to him asking him to do the needful. PWs, 1 and 4 also stated about their entering into the office of the Registrar (J), landing over of the original election petition to the Deputy Registrar (PW 2), waiting for coming of the Commissioner of Oaths and handing over of the original petition again to Buzarbarua (PW 3) as stated by PWs 2 and 3. The statements of PWs 1 to 4 corroborated each other. The Deputy Registrar (J) is an independent witness. There is no masterly to disbelief. The statements of PWs 1 to 4 relating to the attendance of PW 3, the Commissioner of Oaths. The PW 3 stated that he did not sign the attendance Register (EX R-1) on 8th April, 1983. The non-existence of the signature of the PW 3 in the attendance register in the circumstances of that case is a weak and negative evidence. This evidence is to be read along with the other evi­dence. Considering the evidence on records, I conclude that the Commissioner of Oaths-cum-Stamp Reporter was present on 8th April, 1983 at about 12.30 hours. 14. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the election petition was presented in terms of the expre­ssion "presentation'' used in Section 81. The word 'presentation' has many different significations in the context and circumstances in which it is used. The dietiotiary meaning of 'presentation' is delivering; filing; showing. A mere depositing of the petition and marking of filing by the clerk is not a filing. The paper is said to be filed when it is delivered or deposited to the proper office or custodian for keeping it on file. A file mark or endorsement on the petition i; merely an evidence of filing and not actual filing since filing is delivery to the proper officer or clerk for his acceptance for record in his office. 15. In the present case, evidence shows that PW 3 had three functions, namely, Superintendent of Filling Section, Stamp Repo­rter and Commissioner of Oaths. A file mark or endorsement on the petition i; merely an evidence of filing and not actual filing since filing is delivery to the proper officer or clerk for his acceptance for record in his office. 15. In the present case, evidence shows that PW 3 had three functions, namely, Superintendent of Filling Section, Stamp Repo­rter and Commissioner of Oaths. His function as the Stamp Reporter was different from that of the Commissioner of Oaths. As a Commissioner of Oaths, he was to administer Oaths to the petitioner and do other duties prescribed under the High Court Rules relating to affidavit. As a Stamp Reporter he was to apply Ms mind to the petition and accompanying the requisites and for making his note. 16. The Commissioner of Oaths (PW 3) stated : "Mr. Barthakur told that he wanted to file that election peti­tion that very day as it was the last day for filing the election petition. He filed the petition before me that day. I accepted it and opened another almirah of the filing assistant and brought out the rubber stamp of the filing section. I put the rubber stamp of the filing section. Ext. P-3 is the seal which 1 put on that day i.e. 8th April 1983 on the first page of the election petition. I did not make any entry in any register and I kept the petition in the almirah of the filing assistant." The evidence of PW. 3 above shows that he just put the rubber stamp of the Filing Section and kept the petition in the almirah of the Filing Assistant. He did not make any entry in any register. His evidence further shows that the dealing assis­tant was to scrutinise first and then the petition was to be pla­ced before him for examination. He examined and scrutinised the petition only on 11th April 1933 according to the Rules of the High Court. Therefore, he did not apply his mind to the peti­tion as he did not examine the petition on 8th April 1983. The ugh it was the duty of the Filing Assistant, he only put the fi­ling mark. As already stated above mere marking of filing mark is- not actual filing. Therefore, he did not apply his mind to the peti­tion as he did not examine the petition on 8th April 1983. The ugh it was the duty of the Filing Assistant, he only put the fi­ling mark. As already stated above mere marking of filing mark is- not actual filing. In this view of the matter, there was no filing at all in accordance with law and the filing will be deemed to have been made on 11th April 1983 in the context of this case. 17. The learned counsel for the Respondent-1 has drawn my attention to the entries in respect of the present petition, Ex R II made on 8th April 1983, Ex R-2(I) made on 13th April 1983 sho­wing the tender No. as 2361/39, Ex R 7(1), Note of the Dealing Assistant made on 21st April 1983, Ex-R-10, Note of the Deputy Registrar (J) made on 21st April 1983 and Ex R-6 showing the figure “P overwritten. The learned counsel has submitted that these entries shows that the election petition was not filed at all on 8th April 1983. These exhibits entries do not help the Respontdent-1 as the person who had made the entries have not been examined. The Respondent 1 examined three witnesses namely, RW-1 Respondent-1 herself RW 2, Suakat Ali, Advocate and RW 3, the Registrar (J). The evidence of RW 2. Suakat Ali, Advocate is relevant in connection with the Issue No. 4. His evidence is that as requested by the Respondent-1 he made an enquiry on 9th April 1983 about the filing of the election petition in the filing section, and he also met the Stamp Reporter and he ascertained from him that no election petition was filed till that time. PW 3 denied this statement. The statement of RW 2. Suakat Ali, is not corroborated by any other evidence or witness 18. For the foregoing reasons. I bold that the election peti­tion will be deemed to have been filed or presented on 11th April 1983 and that since the last date of filing the election petition was 8th April 1983 the election petition is barred by limitation. Therefore, the issue No. 4 is decided against the petitioner. 19. Re : Issue No. 5 : The question which now arises for consideration is who pre­sented the election petition. Therefore, the issue No. 4 is decided against the petitioner. 19. Re : Issue No. 5 : The question which now arises for consideration is who pre­sented the election petition. As already stated, the original peti­tion which was handed over to the Deputy Registrar (J) in office of the Registrar (J) by the lawyer of the petitioner and/or the petitioner was again handed over to the Commissioner of Oaths, Buzarhama. PW 3 by the Deputy Registrar (J) in his office. The evidence of PW 3 shows that at the time of the alleged filing of the petition only the PW 3, the Commissioner of Oaths and PW 4, Borthakur, Advocate of the petitioner, were the only persons in the room of the Commissioner of Oaths. The evidence of PW 3, further shows that he left the office room immediately after the Oath was administered to the petitioner and keeping the election petition in the almirah of the Filing Assistant and that he did not make any entry on that day, and that only on late April 1983, as a Stamp Reporter, after marking the scrutiny of the election petition made the note (Ext-4) on the back page of the petition to the effect that the petition was id form and in time. PW 3, Commissioner of Oaths did not say about the pre­sence of the petitioner at the time of the alleged filing of the elec­tion petition. As already stated above, the petitioner came out immediately from the road of the Commissioner of Oaths after the Commissioner of Oaths administered Oath to him and he was waiting outside the room for his advocate and that when he left the room of the Commissioner of Oaths, his advocate PW 4 re­mained in the room of the Commissioner of Oaths. PW 4 remai­ned in the room for about 10/12 minutes. PW 4 in the first pant of his examination-in-chief stated that the petitioner had filed the election petition through him as an advocate on 8th April J983 Ex R-6(2) on the first page of the petition shows that the petition was filed by the petitioner through his advocate, PW 4. But the witness PW 4 stated a contradictory statement in the second part of his examination-in-chief. He stated that after com­pletion of the formalities of affidavit the election petition was presented by the petitioner in his presence to the Stamp Repor­ter. But the witness PW 4 stated a contradictory statement in the second part of his examination-in-chief. He stated that after com­pletion of the formalities of affidavit the election petition was presented by the petitioner in his presence to the Stamp Repor­ter. The statement of the PW 4 is not supported by the evi­dence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3. All those circumstances show that the petition was not presented by the petitioner himself or perso­nally and also that it was not presented by his advocate in the immediate presence of the petitioner. The issue is therefore deci­ded against the petitioner. 20. Re : Issue No. 6 : As already stated above the lawyer of the petitioner and/or petitioner handed over the original petition to the Deputy Regis­trar (J) and the Deputy Registrar (J) again handed over the same to the Commissioner of Oaths. The evidence of PW 3 shows is that when Barthakur, PW 4, alleged to have filed election peti­tion, only the original petition was filed. It therefore, shows that the petition was not accompanied by the copies of the elec­tion petition as provided under Section 81(3). PW 4 did not state that he filed the election petition with the copies of the election petition. PW 3 knew the importance of the election petition, and on 9th April, 1983, when the Filing Assistant/attended the office, he told about the filing of the election petition. But he made the report on 11th April, 1983 only. His delay in making the report shows that the petition was not accompanied by the copies of the petition as provided under Section 81(3) and the copies and requisites were filed afterwards. The learned coun­sel for the Respondent-1 has drawn my attention to the office notice made on 21st April, 1983 and submitted that the office notes show that the copies were filed on 21st April, 1983. These notes may be made afterwards. Considering the evidence on record, I conclude that when the election petition was filed the petition was not accompanied by the copies of the election petition as required under Section 81(3) and as such, there was noncompliance with the provision of Section 81(3) of the Act. It has been settled, in a series of decisions of the Supreme Court that if there is non-compliance with the provision of Section 81(3) of the Act, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 21. It has been settled, in a series of decisions of the Supreme Court that if there is non-compliance with the provision of Section 81(3) of the Act, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 21. As regards the allegation that no copy of the challan showing deposit of Rs. 2000 (Rupees two thousand) as security was served along with the true copy of the petition on the Res­pondent No. 1. There are no sufficient evidence on record to show that no copy of the challan showing the deposit was ser­ved to the Respondent-1. Petitioner Respondent-1 PW(1) also has not stated that she did not receive any copy of the challan. Therefore, the respondent has failed to prove the allegations. In this view of the matter, the first part of the issue is decided against the petitioner and the second part of the issue is decided in favour of the petitioner. 22. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs.