JUDGMENT The petitioner was elected as 'Sarpanch' of Gram Panchayat Barda. The same was challenged by Respondent No. 1, Deepa, by filing a election petition before the prescribed authority and by the impugned order dated 24.2.1995, as contained in Annexure P/5, the election of the petitioner was set aside and respondent No. 1 was declared to be duly elected. In the election petition the petitioner has stated that he is prepared to deposit any Court-fee, if directed, by the Court. In answer thereto the petitioner has stated that the statement made in the election petition pertains to provision of law and the same shall be answered at the time of hearing. In the present Writ Application, the petitioner has stated that Rule 7 of the M.P. 'Panchayat (Election Petition Corrupt Practice and Disqualification of Membership) Rules, 1991 inter alia prescribes for deposit of the security money and no such security deposit was made by respondent No. 1 at the time of presentation of the Election Petition but such a deposit was made beyond the period of 30 days i.e. limitation prescribed for presentation of the election petition. Shri Purohit for the petitioner submits that no deposit as required u/s 7 of the Rules made, the Election Petition ought to have been dismissed on this ground alone. He drew my attention to Rule 8 of the Rules which inter alia provides that if the provision of Rule 7 has not been complied with Prescribed Authority shall dismiss the petition. In support of the aforesaid submission Shri Purohit places reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Babulal Kaluram Kirar and another v. State of M.P. and others ( 1985 JLJ 644 = 1985 MPLJ 411 ), relevant portion thereof is quoted below : "In the above view of the matter, we hold that even when no objection is raised about the non-compliance of Rule 7 of the Election Rules, it is incumbent on the Tribunal to dismiss the petition on being satisfied about the non-compliance of that rule. It has no jurisdiction to proceed with its trial." I find substance in submission of Shri Purohit. In the result, the Writ Application is allowed. The Prescribed Authority's order dated 24.2.1995 passed in Case No. 3/C.144-93-94 (Annexure P/5) is quashed. It has no jurisdiction to proceed with its trial." I find substance in submission of Shri Purohit. In the result, the Writ Application is allowed. The Prescribed Authority's order dated 24.2.1995 passed in Case No. 3/C.144-93-94 (Annexure P/5) is quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs of this petition.