Judgment :- Petitioner in the election petition has challenged the right of the first respondent to lead evidence in support of the recrimination filed by the first respondent under S.97 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". Petitioner's counsel prayed that this question may be considered as a preliminary issue before the first respondent is being allowed to lead evidence. Hence I heard both sides on this preliminary question. 2. Petitioner has challenged the election of the first respondent from the Kayamkulam Constituency in the general election held on 12-6-1991. In the election petition petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the election of the candidate is void and he has sought for a further declaration that he shall be the duly elected candidate Within 14 days of the date fixed for the appearance of the first respondent, he file a recrimination under S.97 of the Act. In the recrimination he has given a statement ar particulars required under S.83 of the Act. In the recrimination the first respondent alleged that the petitioner had committed corrupt practices in the election and that, he had been the candidate, his election would have been void. In paragraph 5 of the recrimination petition he specifically stated that this respondent hereby gives notice of his intention to give evidence to prove that the election of the petitioner would have been void if he had been the returned candidate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the recrimination filed . by the first respondent is not accompanied by a notice as contemplated under the proviso to S.97 of the Act. He has contended that the proviso to S.97 specifically says that the recriminator shall give notice to the High Court of his intention to give evidence and the absence of such a separate notice would disentitle the first respondent from giving evidence in support of his allegations in the recrimination. Learned counsel further proceeds that the proviso to S.97 is mandatory and it requires strict compliance. 4. Counsel for the first respondent on the other hand contended that the notice contemplated under S.97(2) of the Act is only a formal notice and the filing of the recrimination petition itself would constitute a notice and no separate notice is necessary. Learned counsel further proceeds that the proviso to S.97 is mandatory and it requires strict compliance. 4. Counsel for the first respondent on the other hand contended that the notice contemplated under S.97(2) of the Act is only a formal notice and the filing of the recrimination petition itself would constitute a notice and no separate notice is necessary. He has also pointed out that the words in S.97(2) of the Act that: "Every notice referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by the statement have no significant meaning to the effect that a separate notice is required. S.97 of the Act is to the following effect: "When in an election petition a declaration that any candidate other than the returned candidate has been duly elected is claimed, the returned candidate or any other party may give evidence to prove that the election of such candidate would have been void if he had been the returned candidate and a petition had been presented calling in question his election: Provided that the returned candidate or such other party, as aforesaid, shall not be entitled to give such evidence unless he has, within fourteen days from the date of (commencement of the trial), given notice to (the High Court) of his intention to do so and has also given the security and the further security referred to in Ss.117 and 118, respectively. (2) Every notice referred to in sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by the statement and particulars required by S.83 in the case of an election petition and shall be signed and verified in like manner". 5. A reading of proviso to S.97 of the Act shows that the recrimintor shall give notice to the High Court of his intention to give evidence in support of the allegations in his recrimination. No form is prescribed for giving such notice. The importance is given not to the notice but to the compliance of the provisions of Ss.117 and 118 relating to secruities and also to the mandate of S.83. The recrimination is to be treated as a counter election petition. There shall be a statement of particulars as required under S.83 of the Act and such petition shall be signed ans verified as laid down under S.83 of the Act. The recrimination is to be treated as a counter election petition. There shall be a statement of particulars as required under S.83 of the Act and such petition shall be signed ans verified as laid down under S.83 of the Act. It is also clear that if any corrupt practice js alleged as a ground in the recrimination it shall be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and particulars thereof. There is no case that the first respondent has failed to comply with any of these mandatory requirements. 6. Proviso to S.97 of the Act only shows that the recriminator should give notice to the High Court of his intention to give evidence. If in the recrimination such intention is explicitly made I do not think that there should be a separate notice other than the recrimination petition. In the decision reported in Sharif¬ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone (AIR 1980 SC 303) it is laid down that whenever a statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to a specific consequence, it would be difficult to hold that the requirement is not mandatory and the specified consequence should not follow. Relying on the above observation counsel for the first respondent contended that the rule regarding notice is not mandatory and it does not follow any penal consequency such as dismissal of the petition. 7. Counsel for the petitioner however contended that the notice under S.97 of the Act is mandatory as it is followed by a penal consequence that the recriminator is disentitled from giving evidence. The notice provided under S.97 of the Act does not appear to be mandatory. It only states that the recriminator should give notice to the Court dealing with election petition. The intention to lead evidence can be expressed in the recrimination itself. That is what has been done in para 5 of the recrimination petition. In RavindraNath v. Raghbir Sing and another (AIR 1968 SC 300) the question of filing recrimination came into consideration of the Supreme Court. In para 5 of the decision it has been stated that: "The notice of recrimination is thus in substance a counter petition calling in question the claim that the other candidate has been duly elected. In RavindraNath v. Raghbir Sing and another (AIR 1968 SC 300) the question of filing recrimination came into consideration of the Supreme Court. In para 5 of the decision it has been stated that: "The notice of recrimination is thus in substance a counter petition calling in question the claim that the other candidate has been duly elected. In this background, it is not surprising that the legislature provided that notice of recrimination must be accompanied by the statement and particulars required by S.83 in the case of an election petition and signed and verified in like manner and the recriminator must give the security and the further security for costs required under Ss.117 and 118 in the case of an election petition". A reading of the Supreme Court judgment would indicate that the notice contemplated under proviso to S.97 of the Act can very well be incorporated in the recrimination itself and no separate notice is necessary. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on several other decisions to show that the right to challenge election is a statutory right and the failure to comply with the provisions of the Act has been viewed seriously by the Supreme Court in several decisions and, therefore, in this case also there should be separate notice and the failure to comply with the rule is to be viewed seriously. This is a proceedural matter where no separate form is provided in the Act or Rules for giving notice to the High Court expressing the intention of the recriminator to give evidence. In the absence of any such prescribed procedure only formal notice is required and the averments in Paragraph 5 of the recrimination fulfil the requirements of proviso to S.97 of the Act. Therefore I hold that the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner's counsel has no force and the first respondent is entitled to lead evidence in support of the allegations contained in this recrimination.