ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. In the election held for the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Akona. Tehsil Rejnagar, District Chhatarpur on 7.6.94, the petitioner was declared elected under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the Act). This election of the petitioner was questioned by means of an election-petition by as many as 7 persons (who are respondents in the present petition) under Section 122 of the Act, which was numbered as 94/B 121/94-95. 2. The declaration of the result of the election was made on 7.6.94 and the election petition was filed on 7.7.94 within the period provided for filing an election petition under Section 122 of the Act. 3. Before the Election Tribunal, the returned candidates i.e. the present petitioner took an objection that the election-petition for non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Petitions. Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the 1991 Rules) was liable to be dismissed as mandated under Rule 8 of the 1991 Rules. This objection was rejected by the Election Tribunal by means of an order dated 16.5.95 which is the subject-matter of challenge by means of the present writ petition. 4. It may be noticed that the election petition was filed without deposit of security amount at the time of the presentation of the election-petition and the security amount was deposited the next day i.e. 8.7.94. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel. Counsel for the private respondents is not present though the case is taken in the revised cause list. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a short and the only submission confining himself to the circumscribed limit of the impugned order that the election Tribunal has gravely erred in law in not dismissing the election-petition for non-compliance of mandatory requirement of Rule 7 of the 1991 Rules, as mandated under Rule 8 thereof. 7. The requirement of depositing security amount is under Rule 7 of the 1991 Rules which is as extracted below:- 7. At the time of presentation of an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit with the prescribed authority a sum of Rs. 250/- as security for cost of petition. 7. The requirement of depositing security amount is under Rule 7 of the 1991 Rules which is as extracted below:- 7. At the time of presentation of an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit with the prescribed authority a sum of Rs. 250/- as security for cost of petition. This rule provides that at the time of the presentation of the election-petition the petitioner shall deposit with the specified officer the security amount. This provision is analogous to Section 117 (1) of the Representation of People's Act, 1951 which says that "At the time of presenting an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit in the High Court in accordance with the Rules of the High Court, a sum of two thousand rupees as security for the costs of the petition." 8. How the election petition is to be presented is provided under Rule 3 of 1991 Rules, which says that the election-petition shall be presented to the specified officer during the office hours by the person making the petition, or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition. 9. In the present case, it is not disputed that the security amount was deposited after the expiry of the period of limitation. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission relied on decisions in Altemesh Rain Vs. Chandulal Chandrakar, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1199 and Anjana Mulkelwar Vs. Bhanu Yadav 1997 J.L.J. 78. 11. The case of Altemesh Rain (supra) is not attracted as in that case, the petition itself was not filed within the period of limitation. The other case relied on was Nagji Vs. Deepa 1995 M.P. WN (248) at Page 345 (Volume 2). In this case, it was held that if the security amount is not deposited within the period of limitation, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Baidyanath Yadav and others A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 305, approved the proposition mat the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act are mandatory and if the Court finds that they have not been complied with, it has not alternative but to dismiss the election petition straightway. 13. 12. Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Baidyanath Yadav and others A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 305, approved the proposition mat the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act are mandatory and if the Court finds that they have not been complied with, it has not alternative but to dismiss the election petition straightway. 13. Learned State counsel relied on the proviso to Rule 8 and submitted that the Proviso provides that unless an opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner, the petition is not to be dismissed straightway, and he has submitted that from this, inference can be drawn that Rule 8 is not mandatory and is not analogous to the provisions of Section 87 of the Representation of People's Act, 1951. He also placed reliance on a decision in W.P. No. 3802/94 Ravi Thakur Vs. Shiv Shankar Patel, Decided on 16.8.96. 14. So far this decision is concerned, it does not held as the controversy involved in the present case in that the security amount was not deposited at the time of the presentation of the election-petition but the amount was deposited subsequent to the expiry of the period of limitation. 15. Learned State Counsel further submitted that there is a distinction between Rule 8 of the Rules and Section 86 of the Representation of People's Act. Rule 8 of the Rules contains a proviso to the effect that the petition shall not be dismissed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, whereas no such proviso is attracted to Section 86. 16. The proviso carves out something from the main clause and the question is what is that something. That something is to find out as to how there has been non-compliance of the provisions of Rules 3, 4 and 7 as it may have been sometime that though the security amount is deposited at the time of the presentation but the receipt of the deposit is not accompanied with the petition. Another aspect is that when a mode of doing a thing is provided, the thing is to be done accordingly or not at all. On account of non-compliance of Rule 7 regarding deposit of security amount, the opportunity is necessary to establish that compliance of the law has been done without any defect of substantial. 17. Another aspect is that when a mode of doing a thing is provided, the thing is to be done accordingly or not at all. On account of non-compliance of Rule 7 regarding deposit of security amount, the opportunity is necessary to establish that compliance of the law has been done without any defect of substantial. 17. The proviso is for the purpose that the petitioner may have an opportunity of pointing out as to whether this non-compliance of the Rule 7 of 1991. Rules is only formal one or an irregularity if any, not of substantial nature. 18. Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Baidyanath Yadav and others (supra) in connection with the provision of Section 89 (3) as it then was, which corresponds to present Section 81 (3) of the Act, enunciated the following principles of law:- Whenever a statute prescribed that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that a failure to comply with the said requirement leads to a specific consequences, it would be difficult to hold that the requirement is not mandatory and specified consequences should not now. 19. In the said case of Mithilesh Kumar Pandey (supra) the Court also settled the proposition in regard to Section 81 (3) of the Representation of People's Act that it is meant to protest and safeguard the sacrosanct electoral process so as not to disturb the verdict of the voters, there is no room for giving a liberal or broad interpretation to the provisions of the said section. 20. The consequence of non-compliance of Rule 3, or rule 4 or rule 7 is provided under Rule X which says that "If the provisions of Rule 3 or rule 4 or rule 7 have not been complied with, the petition shall be dismissed by the specified officers." 21. This pro vision is analogous to the section 36 of the Representation or the People's Act, 1951 which says that the High Court shall dismissed an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117. Section 117 relates to the deposit of security. 22. In the case of Babulal Kalurani Kirar Vs. Section 117 relates to the deposit of security. 22. In the case of Babulal Kalurani Kirar Vs. State of M.P. 1985 M.P.L.J. 411 the Court had the occasion to consider the mandate of the provisions of Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules whether the same are mandatory or directory, and it was held that when the consequence of nullification on failure to comply with a prescribed requirement is provided in the statute itself, it has unhesitatingly to be interpreted to be mandatory; and the Court held that the irresistible conclusion is that the provision of Rule 7 of 1991 Rules is mandatory. 23. The other view was reported in Kailash Narayan Vs. Namdar and others 1996 L.J.L. 391, where the Court had the occasion to consider the shortage in the deposit of the security amount and the Court found that the deficiency may be made good even after the date of the presentation but it should be done within the period of limitation. In writ petition No. 2/96 (Indore Bench) decided on 27.5.96, this Court, agreeing with the view taken in Kailsh Narayan's case (supra), held that the security amount can be deposited within the period of limitation and if the cognizance is not taken before the deposit of security amount, the election petition does not suffer from any vital defect. The case of Babulal Kalurani Kirar (supra) was considered and was distinguished on the basis that in the said case, the provision of Rule 7 which provided for deposit of security was held to be mandatory but the question of effect of deposit within the period of limitation did not arise for consideration in the said case and as such, the case of Babulal Kaluram Kirar (supra) was found to be of no assistance for the controversy. 24. In view of the above, the petition succeeds. The impugned order is set aside. The election petition No. 94-B-121/94-95 pending before the Election Tribunal shall stand dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. Petition allowed