ORDER 1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur, dated 13.3.1995 (Annex, P/5) in Election Petition No. 16 of 1994 (Bhanu Yadav v. Smt. Anjana and another) setting aside the election to Constituency No. 34 - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur, declaring her .election as member of the Jila Panchayat, Bilaspur as invalid. 2. Two election petitions were filed. One by Bhanu Yadav a/o Bhalau Yadav and another by Manharanlal s/o Santram (Election Petition No. 26 of 1994). The data relevant for deciding this petition is as under: 3. The petitioner was a candidate for election from Constituency No. 34, Takhatpur, on 1.6.1994 which was reserved for other backward classes. Having been elected the petitioner contested for the post of President of Jila Panchayat, Bilaspur, which was reserved for woman and was elected on 26.6.1994. Her election as member was challenged from Constituency No. 34. Takhatpur, by Bhanu Yadav. The election to the post of President was also challenged by Manharanlal. He also challenged her election as Member from Takhatpur constituency. 4. The competent officer to entertain an Election Petition is Commissioner, Bilaspur. 5. The rules have been framed known as M.P. Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991. Prescribed authority is defined under Rule 2 (c). Rule 3 deals with presentation of the election petition. Rule 4 deals with parties to the petition. Rule 6 deals with relief that may be claimed by the petitioner. Rule 7 speaks about deposit of security. Rule 8 speaks about the procedure and receipt of election petition and Rule 11 deals with the procedure before the prescribed authority and its powers. Rule 22 deals with grounds for declaring of election to be void. 6. The present rules came into force from the date of their publication in the official gazette i.e. 7.11.91. These rules repealed the rules framed under the 1962 Act. Rule 30 is quoted below "30. Repeal.- The Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1962 are hereby repealed." 7. A few sections of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, may also be referred. Under section 2 (iv) election means election of office bearers of Panchayat & includes co-option of office bearers. Rule 30 is quoted below "30. Repeal.- The Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1962 are hereby repealed." 7. A few sections of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, may also be referred. Under section 2 (iv) election means election of office bearers of Panchayat & includes co-option of office bearers. Section 2 (xiii) speaks about office bearer means a Panch, Sarpanch or Upsarpanch of a grampanchayat, a member, president or Vice-president of a Janpad Panchayat or a member, or president or vice-president of Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, and section 2 (xiv) speaks about 'Other Backward Classes' means category of persons belonging to backward classes as notified by the State Government. Section 2 (xx) speaks about 'President' and 'Vice-president' means the President and Vice-president respectively of a Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat as the case may be. Section 2 (xxx) speaks about "Zila Panchayat" means a Zila Panchayat established under sub-section (3) of section 10. Sec. 10 speaks that there shall be a Zila Panchayat for every district. Constitution of Zila Panchayat is given in section 29. Section 29 (1) speaks about Member elected from the constituencies. The petitioner was a member elected from 34, Takhatpur constituency. Section 33 deals about publication of names of members President and Vice-president. 8. A further fact which may be noted in the present case is that the Takhatpur constituency was reserved for Other Backward Classes (O.B.C.) and the Bilaspur Zila Panchayat was reserved for woman. 9. The Election Petition No. 16/94 was presented by Bhanu Yadav. He had deposited only Rs. 50/- at the time of filing of the election petition. It is alleged that the same was not presented before the competent authority. It is also alleged that the same does not bear the signature of Bhanu Yadav. There is a serious allegation that his signatures have been forged not only on the petition but also on the Vakalatnama. It was alleged that the petition was filed beyond the limitation and the prescribed authority should have dismissed the same. It was alleged that Bhanu Yadav was not even a voter in the said constituency and as such he had no right to file Election Petition. 10. The controversy before this Court is not about Vice-president. The controvery involved only against the President and not against the Vice-president. It was alleged that Bhanu Yadav was not even a voter in the said constituency and as such he had no right to file Election Petition. 10. The controversy before this Court is not about Vice-president. The controvery involved only against the President and not against the Vice-president. Reference is made to rule 7 of the M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991. 11. The further averment is that the election petition was not filed in persoin as required under Rule 2 and as such there was no valid presentation. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 wanted to withdraw the petition but he was not allowed to do so and as such the action of the competent authority is arbitrary. Lastly, it was submitted that the finding recorded by the competent authority that the petitioner does not belong to O.B.C. is perverse. The Prescribed Authority did not give ample opportunity to produce evidence in support of the claim. 12. It may be pointed out that all these allegations have come by way of amendment and were not part of the original petition. 13. Another election petition No. 26 of 1994 was filed by Manharanlal challenging the election to the Takhatpur constituency as well as Zila Panchayat. In that case the deposit of security of Rs. 250/- is not in dispute. The only submission made was that it was barred by limitation having been not filed within 30 days from tile date of declaration of the result. 14. The election was declared on 1.6.1994 and the petition was filed on 30.7.94 as such it was barred by limitation. There was a prayer for setting aside both the elections. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order passed by the Commissioner stating that the election petition could not have been entertained and even if entertained, should have been dismissed at the threshold. Great emphasis was laid on rule 3 and 7 regarding the presentation of the election petition as also rule 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these provisions of the rules are pari materia with the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951 and presentation of the election petition should be in the same manner as contemplated under section 81 and 82 of the Representation of the People Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these provisions of the rules are pari materia with the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951 and presentation of the election petition should be in the same manner as contemplated under section 81 and 82 of the Representation of the People Act. A great emphasis was laid on Article 342 (O) (B) of the Constitution saying that the language of the Article is in same terms as Article 329 of the Constitution of India relating to the election to the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. 16. Placing reliance on these provisions the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the election petition was liable to be dismissed for non-depositing of the security amount as contemplated under Rule 7 and any subsequent deposit would not cure the defect. The submission made on behalf petition was that non-deposit of the security amount was due to the fact that the State Government had notified that the rules framed in the year 1962 would be applicable for presenting the election petition and they were misled because of the same. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Government instructions cannot be taken as an excuse for not employing with the provisions of the rules. 17. Be that as it may be, Rs. 50/- were deposited by Bhanu Yadav on the date of the presentation on 30.6.94 and Rs. 200/- on 13.7.94. It is surprising that in this petition there were surprising events. Bhanu Yadav is said to have not filed the petition at all and denied his signatures in the election petition. He also denied that it was filed on his behalf. Yet further astonishing feature regarding Bhanu Yadav is that he also declined to have filed any return in the High Court or signed a Vakalatnama for defending the case in the High Court. 18. It is also alleged that there was an application for withdrawal under rule 13. Rule 13 confers jurisdiction on the competent authority to exercise discretion whether to allow withdrawal of the election petition or not. 19. 18. It is also alleged that there was an application for withdrawal under rule 13. Rule 13 confers jurisdiction on the competent authority to exercise discretion whether to allow withdrawal of the election petition or not. 19. Challenge to the election is for maintaining the purity of election and if any person after having filed the petition intends to withdraw the petition, since the electorate is equally concerned with the result of the election petition or contest of the election petition, normally opportunity is given to any electorate to join the petition, taking the clue from the arguments of the petitioner themselves that the constitutional provisions should be taken into consideration, in regard to filing of election petition. The normal procedure in regard to withdrawal of election petition should also be taken note of. Manharanlal filed the petition on 25.1.1994, alleged to have filed before the Reader of the Competent Authority. The argument is, it had been filed before the Competent Authority, the order sheet should not have started from 30.7.94. Copy of the order sheet dt. 30.7.94 has been filed as Annexure-D/2. Manharanlal filed two affidavits, one of them is dated 28.4.95. Earlier Shri Ravindra Shrivastava was appearing for one of the petitioners. Later on, some other counsel replaced him saying that they have not engaged him. Now they have filed powers on behalf of Bhanu Yadav. It is really surprising that such affidavits should have been filed in the High Court. The matter is serious and it requires enquiry into the conduct of the person and the counsel who alleged to have stated that they had not engaged the counsel in the High Court. It is a separate issue which will be dealt with at the end of the order passed in this case. 20. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, counsel was permitted to intervene on behalf of Arjun Tiwari who is the Chairman of the Janpad Panchayat, Pandariya. It is admitted that he is neither a voter of constituency No. 34, Takhatpur, or a voter for the office of Zila Panchayat yet he is interested in the result of the petition. 21. A few legal questions were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the persons, who had filed the election petitions, were not qualified to file the election petitions. 21. A few legal questions were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the persons, who had filed the election petitions, were not qualified to file the election petitions. A perusal of the provisions of the Act would show that an election petition could be presented by any person authorised in this behalf by person making the petition within 30 days from the date on which the election or cooption was notified. The question is who can file the election petition. I may also refer to section 122 which speaks about the grounds for declaring the election or cooption as void, which reads as under :- 122. Election petition-- (i) An election or cooption under this Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner:- (i) in case of Gram Panchayat to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue); (ii) in case of Janapad Panchayat to the Collector; and (iii) in case of Zila Panchayat to the Divisional Commissioner and not otherwise. (2) No such petition shall be admitted unless it presented within thirty days from the date on which the election or co-option in question was notified. (3) Such petition shall be enquired into, or disposed of according to such procedures as may be prescribed." The section does not prescribe as to who can file the election petition. Ordinarily, person who is voter in the constituency can challenge the election of a returned candidate. I will deal with the legal objections raised whether the election petition was properly presented. As regards presentation of election petition by Bhanu Yadav it is really surprising that the person have come forward to withdraw the petition which was not filed by them. Either the petition was filed or not filed it was not filed by Bhanu Yadav it least mattered to him. At this stage it may be relevant to refer to the findings recorded by the competent authority, at page 7 and 8. Either the petition was filed or not filed it was not filed by Bhanu Yadav it least mattered to him. At this stage it may be relevant to refer to the findings recorded by the competent authority, at page 7 and 8. Relevant portion is reproduced below :- ^^blds ckn Hkh mÙkjokfnuh Øekad 1 us vius vf/koDrk lfgr iqu% 9 ekpZ 95 dks esjh vuqifLFkfr esa dfe’uj fcykliqj ds uke ls dfe’uj dk;kZy; ds v/kh{kd ds le{k ,d vkosnu i= izLrqr djok;k tks ;kfpdkdrkZ Hkkuq ;kno ds gLrk{kjok;k gS vkSj ftlesa ;g dgk x;k gS fd og viuh pquko ;kfpdk okil ysrk gSA loZizFke ;g vkosnui= ;kfpdkdrkZ Hkkuq ;kno us Lo;a mifLFkr gksdj vFkok bl laca/k esa gyQukek yxkdj izLrqr ugha fd;k Fkk] blfy, bls lk{; dk egRo fn, tkus ij fopkj djuk laHko ugha FkkA ysfdu fnukad 13-3-95 dks] ftl fnu ;kfpdk esa vafre :i ls vkns’k ikfjr djus ds fy, frfFk r; dh x;h Fkh mÙkjokfnuh Øekad 1 us vius vf/koDrk Jh ,u-ds- ikaMs lfgr Jh Hkkuq ;kno dks ysdj esjs le{k mifLFkfr gqbZ vkSj Hkkuq ;kno us esjs iwNs tkus ij ;g dgk gS fd mUgksaus] muds }kjk mÙkjokfnuh Øekad 1 ds fo:) nk;j fuokZpu ;kfpdk dks okil ysus ds fy, vkosnu i= fn;k gS esjs }kjk ;g iwNs tkus ij fd D;k os ogh O;fDr gSa ftUgksaus fuokZpu ;kfpdk ij gLrk{kj fd, gSa] ‘kiFk i= ij gLrk{kj fd, gSa] vkSj vkns’k if=dk fnukad 11-1-95 ij Hkh gLrk{kj fd, gSa rks esjs le{k mifLFkfr ;kfpdkdrkZ Jh Hkkuq ;kno us viuk iwoZ dFku nksgjkrs gq, dgk fd mlus ;kfpdk izLrqr dh gS vkSj lHkh txg gLrk{kj fd, gSa mlls ;g iwNs tkus ij fd ;kfpdk D;ksa okil ysuk pkgrs gSa rks mUgksaus ;g mÙkj fn;k fd mUgsa dqN vPNk ugha yx jgk Fkk blfy, mUgksaus ;kfpdk okil ysus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gSA** 22. The competent authority specifically asked whether he was the same person who had filed the election petition. He also verified the signatures from the order sheet dated 11.1.1995 and the affidavit filed and other signatures. On being asked why he wants to withdraw the petition, it was stated that he was not happy after filing the election petition. There is a clear finding that Bhanu Yadav was not a fictitious person. In fact, there was some indirect pull which was working in order to get the election petition withdrawn. 23. On being asked why he wants to withdraw the petition, it was stated that he was not happy after filing the election petition. There is a clear finding that Bhanu Yadav was not a fictitious person. In fact, there was some indirect pull which was working in order to get the election petition withdrawn. 23. As regards the election petition filed by Manharanlal two questions were raised that he could not have challenged the election of the petitioner as Member from 34, Takhatpur, constituency, nor could have challenged the election as a Chairman, Zila Panchayat it cannot be denied that the election petition can be filed only by a person who is a voter in the said constituency rather an elector or a candidate at the election. Thus, in the election petition filed by Manharanlal could not have challenged the election of the petitioner either as a member from 34. Takhatpur constituency or as a President/Chairman of the Zila Panchayat. 24. The election petition filed by Bhanu Yadav did suffer from a defect in as such he had not paid necessary security amount. 25. The second question is whether the presentation was proper or not? It shall become a question of fact. The competent authority has given a finding that it was presented by him and he was the same person and not fictitious person had filed it. Yet the election petition not being filed according to rules no decision could be given on it. 26. The attempt made on the part of Bhanu Yadav to go back on his petition and filing affidavits, applications and denying his signatures on various documents calls for initiation of actions against him for perjury. In this Court also he has tried to go back on the return filed by him as also the signatures made by him on the Vakalatnama. Let a complaint be filed against him for prosecution for perjury before the competent authority. 27. It may be stated that an election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but is a purely statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and the Court possess no common law power. Let a complaint be filed against him for prosecution for perjury before the competent authority. 27. It may be stated that an election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but is a purely statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and the Court possess no common law power. The Supreme Court in Immati Mollappa Basappa v. Desai Basavaraj Ayyappa ( AIR 1958 SC 698 ) has stated thus :- An election contest is not an action at law of a suit in equity but is a purely statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and the Court possesses no common law power. An election petition is not a matter in which the only persons interested are candidates who strove against each other at the elections. The public also are substantially interested in it and this is not merely in the sense that an election has news value. An election is an essential part of the democratic process. An election petition is not a suit between two persons, but is a proceeding in which the constituency itself is the principal party interested. K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar and others ( AIR 1958 SC 687 ) foll..; Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh & others ( AIR 1954 SC 210 ) relied on. It is this interest of the constituency as a whole which invests the proceedings before the Election Tribunals with a characteristic of their own and differentiates them from ordinary civil proceedings. Once this process has been set in motion by the petitioner he has released certain forces which even he himself would not be able to recall and he is bound to pursue the petition to its logical end." The election petition cannot be withdrawn as a matter of right. Since it has been found that the election petitions filed were not competent, the finding given on merit whether the petitioner belongs to other backward classes or not become redundant. 28. If any attempt has been made by the petitioner to obtain a false certificate that she does not belong to other backward classes, the authorities may take such steps as them deem proper. The election of the petitioner could not have been set aside or declared void on a petition filed which were not competent. 29. For the reasons stated above, the petition is accordingly allowed with costs. The election of the petitioner could not have been set aside or declared void on a petition filed which were not competent. 29. For the reasons stated above, the petition is accordingly allowed with costs. The respondents No.1 and 2 and the intervener shall bear the costs of the petitioner Rs. 1,000/- each.