Judgment :- Election of members to the Kottarakkara Panchayat took place on 23-1-1988. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Returning Officer under Rule 10 of the Kerala Panchayat (Election of Members) Rules, petitioner and respondents 1 to 6 filed nomination papers for election. In the poll held on 23-1-1988 first respondent was declared elected by the Returning Officer from Ward No. XI, with a margin of two votes over the petitioner. Petitioner then filed O.P.4/88 before 7th respondent for declaring the election of first respondent as void. He also prayed for a declaration that he was duly elected as member of the Panchayat from Ward No. XI. 7th respondent dismissed that application on the ground that the petition filed was not accompanied by a list as provided by clause (5) of Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayats (decision of Election Disputes) Rules, 1963, hereinafter referred to as' the Rules 'and also on the ground that it is barred by limitation as per sub-section (2) of S.22of the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The correctness of that decision is under challenge. 2. Polling was held on 23-1-1988. Result of the election was declared on 24-1-1988. As per S. 22(2) of the Act an application challenging the validity of election should be filed before the Munsiff having jurisdiction, within 15 days after the date of the declaration of the result of the election. So, the petition challenging the election should have been filed on or before 8-2-1988. In the instant case petitioner did file the application on 2-2-1988, well within the period of 15 days after the date of declaration of the result of the election. So, learned Munsiff was clearly in error in dismissing the application as barred by limitation. 3. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the decision of the learned Munsiff that the application is not maintainable on account of the violation of Rule 5(5) of the Rules is correct or not. Ext. P2 is the petition filed before the Munsiff. 3. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the decision of the learned Munsiff that the application is not maintainable on account of the violation of Rule 5(5) of the Rules is correct or not. Ext. P2 is the petition filed before the Munsiff. Grounds alleged for interfering with the declaration of first respondent's result are stated as follows: The result of the election has been materially affected by the non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Kerala Panchayats (Election of Members) Rules, 1962, and the Kerala Panchayats (decision of Election Disputes) Rules, 1963 and improper reception and rejection of votes. Nomination paper of first respondent ought to have been rejected. First respondent is not a qualified candidate as he has not completed 25 years of age on the date of filing the nomination, as prescribed under the Act. Before rejecting the ballot papers as invalid, the Returning Officer did not allow the petitioner or his counting agent to inspect them. Petitioner or his counting agent was not informed of the grounds for rejecting those ballot papers. All the votes cast in favour of the petitioner were not counted in determining the total of the number of votes secured by the petitioner. The post ballot papers were not scrutinised properly. Votes which were to be rejected as invalid were counted as valid in favour of first respondent. Valid votes in favour of the petitioner were rejected as invalid votes. After counting was over petitioner filed application for re-counting. Then there was differences in the number of votes. Very material irregularities have crept in the process of counting the votes. Hence the election of first respondent as the member representing Ward No. XI is to be declared void and the petitioner may be declared as elected as the member representing Ward No. XI. 4. The procedure to be followed in the petition before the learned Munsiff for determining the validity of the election is governed by the Rules. Rule 5 of the Rules relate to presentation of election petition. An election petition calling in question any election can be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-clauses (a) to (d) of S. 22(1) of the Act, as per Rule 5(1) of the Rules. Rule 5 of the Rules relate to presentation of election petition. An election petition calling in question any election can be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-clauses (a) to (d) of S. 22(1) of the Act, as per Rule 5(1) of the Rules. Such an election petition will be deemed to have been presented to the Munsiff when it is delivered to the Munsiff or to such other officer as may be appointed by him in this behalf, by the petitioner or by his authorised representative. When it is sent by registered post and is delivered to the Munsiff or to the officer authorised by him, it will be taken that the petition has been properly presented. All candidates who were duly nominated at the election have to be joined as respondents. As per clause (4) of that rule an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. It should be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for verification of the pleadings. Clause (5) of that rule mandates that the election petition should be accompanied by a list setting forth full particulars of any corrupt or illegal practice which the petitioner alleges. That list must include as full a statement as possible as to the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt or illegal practices and the date and place of commission of such practices. The Munsiff, as per clause (6) of Rule 5 has been given the power to allow the particulars included in the list to be amended or order such further and better particulars to be furnished for the purpose of ensuring a fair and effectual trial of the petition. Clause (8) of Rule 5 provides that if the provisions of sub-rules (1) to (6) are not complied with, the Munsiff shall dismiss the petition. 5. A Division Bench of this court in Mohammed v. Munsiff, Tirur & Another (1984 KLT 648) took the view that sub-rule (8) of Rule 5 is a mandatory provision, non-compliance of which will entail dismissal of the petition. 5. A Division Bench of this court in Mohammed v. Munsiff, Tirur & Another (1984 KLT 648) took the view that sub-rule (8) of Rule 5 is a mandatory provision, non-compliance of which will entail dismissal of the petition. The Bench observed: "Sub-rule (8) of Rule 5 is positive that if the provisions of any of the sub-rules(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) or (6) of Rule 5 are not complied with, the Munsiff has no other option but to dismiss the election petition. It would also mean that an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of the various sub-rules of Rule 5 is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed straightaway. For the application of sub-rule (6) of that rule which empowers the Munsiff to allow the amendment of the particulars included in the list mentioned in sub-rule (5), there should necessarily have been a list accompanying the election petition. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 5 does not in terms empower the Munsiff to allow to introduce a list for the first time; and that would mean that the absence of a list signed and verified in the manner prescribed is not a defect which could be cured by the introduction of a new list after the filing of the election petition. In other words, where there is a violation of the andatory provision that an election petition in which corrupt practice is alleged as a ground is not accompanied by a list signed and verified in the manner prescribed, the defect goes to the very root of the matter which could not be cured subsequently, and the Munsiff is left with no other option except to dismiss the election petition straightaway in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (8) of Rule 5". 6. In the instant case petitioner has not alleged any corrupt practice as a ground for setting aside the election of first respondent. His contention, as stated earlier, was that first respondent was not qualified to contest the election as he was under aged and that the Returning Officer improperly rejected valid votes polled in his favour and improperly accepted the invalid votes polled in the name of first respondent. No list as contemplated by rule 5(5) of the rules was filed along with the petition. Was it necessary for such a list to be filed along with the election petition? No list as contemplated by rule 5(5) of the rules was filed along with the petition. Was it necessary for such a list to be filed along with the election petition? For a proper understanding of Rule 5(5) of the Rules, I read the same: "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 a statement as possible as to the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt or illegal practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice". The above provision enjoins the petitioner in an election petition to file a list setting forth the full particulars of corrupt or illegal practices which he has alleged in the petition. What is meant by' corrupt or illegal practice? Are 'corrupt or illegal practice' represent one and the same type of practice or do they refer to different matters. Is the petitioner in an election petition called upon to file a list of corrupt practice set forth in the application and also other illegal practice set forth in the election petition? According to learned counsel representing the petitioner where a petition has been filed to set aside the election on account of the corrupt practice resorted to by one of the contestants in the election, then alone need a list as contemplated by clause (5) of R.5 be filed by the petitioner. On the other hand learned counsel representing the first respondent would contend that the petitioner in an election petition will have to file a list of the various grounds alleged by him for setting aside the election. In other words, if corrupt practices are alleged then a list of such corrupt practices must be given. In case the election is challenged on account of other illegalities, a list of such illegalities which crept in the conduct of the election must be furnished to court. 7. The earlier part of clause (5) of R.5 con templates filing of a list of corrupt or illegal practice which the petitioner has alleged in the petition. In case the election is challenged on account of other illegalities, a list of such illegalities which crept in the conduct of the election must be furnished to court. 7. The earlier part of clause (5) of R.5 con templates filing of a list of corrupt or illegal practice which the petitioner has alleged in the petition. The latter part of the clause states that the list must include as full a statement as possible as to the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt or illegal practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. The 2nd part makes it abundantly clear that the corrupt or illegal practice contemplated therein can only relate to corrupt practice as defined in clause (3) of S.22 of the Act. The other illegalities which could have gone to affect the result of the election are those committed by the Returning Officer or Officers responsible for the conduct of the election. Such illegalities can never be termed as illegal practice. Those illegalities could have been committed by the officers at the time of the acceptance of the nomination oral the time of the counting of votes. Such illegalities cannot come within the latter part of clause (5) of R.5. When the latter part makes it clear that the 'corrupt or illegal practice' referred to in that clause can have relevance only to 'corrupt practice' as defined in clause (3) of S.22 of the Act, it must be held that the first part of clause (5) of R.5 also relevance only to such practice. In other words, 'corrupt or illegal practice' referred to in clause (5) Rule 5 can have reference only to the various circumstances mentioned in clause (3) of S.22 of the Act as corrupt practice and not to the instance enumerated in clauses (a), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of S.22 of the Act. The grounds falling within those clauses cannot be termed as illegal practice either. When a petition is filed challenging the result of the election on the ground of corrupt practice u/S. 22(1)(d) of the Act, clause (5) of Rule 5 of the Rules will apply and it has no relevance to the petition under clauses (a), (c) or (d) of S.22(1) of the Act. When a petition is filed challenging the result of the election on the ground of corrupt practice u/S. 22(1)(d) of the Act, clause (5) of Rule 5 of the Rules will apply and it has no relevance to the petition under clauses (a), (c) or (d) of S.22(1) of the Act. The effect of clause (5) of Rule 5 is that any election petition in which corrupt practice is alleged as a ground, it should be accompanied by a list of such corrupt and illegal practice signed and verified in the manner prescribed. If such a list is not filed, the defect goes to the very root of the matter which cannot be cured subsequently. 8. As stated earlier, petitioner did not challenge the first respondent's election on account of any corrupt or illegal practice adopted by him. So, there was no necessity for him to file a statement as contemplated by clause (5) of R.5 of the Rules. So, the learned Munsiff was clearly in error in dismissing the petition. 9. Learned Munsiff did not go into the merits of the petition filed before him. Therefore, I direct him to 'restore election petition No.4/88 to file and to dispose of the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Parties must be given reasonable opportunity to let in evidence. The Original Petition is disposed of in the above manner. Issue photo copy of the judgment to the parties on ususal terms. Communicate this judgment to 7th respondent.