ORDER C.K. Prasad, J. 1. Petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Parasi which was reserved for the members of the schedule tribe. Respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the election petitioner) challenged the petitioner's (returned candidate) election in an application filed under section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for declaring the election of the returned candidate as null and void as also for his declaration as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Election Tribunal (Sub Divisional Officer) by order dated 26.6.1995, after holding that the election petitioner is not a member of of scheduled tribe but of other backward class set aside his election and declared the election petitioner to have been elected as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It is common ground that there were other candidates who were nominated at the election, but were not impleaded as party Returned candidate being aggrieved by setting aside of his election as also declaration of the election petitioner, as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Shri L.S. Baghel, in support of the writ petition, raises a very short point. He submits that Rule 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) contemplates that when the election petitioner claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, he shall join as respondent to his petition all other candidates who were nominated at the election. It has been stated by the petitioner that other candidates were not joined as respondents and tins fact has not been controverted by the returned candidate. Accordingly it has to be held that all the candidates were not impleaded as respondents although the election petitioner made a prayer that he declared as duly elected. Shri Jaiswal, however, appearing on behalf of election petitioner submits that the question of non-joinder of other candidates in the election petition, was not raised during the trial of the election petition and in that view of the matter, the said point cannot he allowed to he agitated for the first time before this Court in the writ petition. 3. Shri Jaiswal, however, appearing on behalf of election petitioner submits that the question of non-joinder of other candidates in the election petition, was not raised during the trial of the election petition and in that view of the matter, the said point cannot he allowed to he agitated for the first time before this Court in the writ petition. 3. A perusal of the reply filed by the returned candidate clearly shows that he has taken objection of nonjoinder of other candidates. It has been expressly averred that as all the candidates have not been impleaded as party, the election petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold, on this ground. Thus, the submission of the election petitioner that no such plea was taken is unfounded on facts. Now 1 proceed to consider the consequence of nonjoinder of all other candidates in the election petition. Rule 8 of the Rules provides for procedure on receiving petition which reads as follows :- 8. Procedure on receiving petition if the provisions of rule 3 or rule 4 or rule 7 have not been complied with, the prescribed authority shall dismiss the petition. Provided that the petition shall not be dismissed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Consequence of non compliance of Rule 4 enjoins the prescribed authority to dismiss the petition. Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Amol Singh v. Hameer Singh and others 1997 (1) Vid Bha 152 supports this view in the absence of all the candidates being impleaded as the respondents in the election petition and in the face of the prayer made by the election petitioner for his declaration as Sarpanch, the Election Tribunal could not have proceeded with the trial of the election petition. The ultimate Judgment rendered by the Election Tribunal and impugned in the writ petition, therefore, cannot be sustained. 4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 26.6.1996 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Prescribed Authority (Annexure P-1) is quashed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.