ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. It is pointed out that service on the respondents is effected. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents No. 1, 3, 6,10, 5 and 11. Counsel for the respondents are not present. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Under the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), election for the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khukhda Kothar, Development Block Rampur Badhelan, District Satna took place on 30th May, 1994 wherein respondent No. 1 Kedar Singh was declared duly elected. His election was challenged by means of election petition as provided Under Section 122 of the Act. Election petition, as stated by the learned counsel, was filed on 30th June, 1994. Security amount of Rs. 50/- was deposited at the time of presentation of the election petition by the petitioner. His election petition was dismissed on 31-5-1995 by the Election Tribunal as the security amount of Rs. 250/- as required under the law was not deposited. 4. Under Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualifications for Membership) Rules, 1991 framed under the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1990, the election petitioner is required to deposit a sum of Rs. 250/- as security for cost of petition. The Act was notified in the official Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 25-1-1992 and came into effect from the same date. By virtue of Section 130 of the Act, rules framed under the Act No. 13 of 1990 were made applicable. 5. As submitted by the learned State counsel the State Govt. issued some circular regarding the amount of security deposit in election petition and the amount was stated in the circular to be Rs. 50/- On this basis many petitions were filed. The defect was noticed by the government and an Act No. 9 of 1996 known as "The Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Yachika Pratibhuti Nikshep (Vidhimanyakaran) Adhiniyam, 1996 was passed which was published in M.P. Gazette (Extraordinary ) dated 17th April, 1996. Section 3 of this Act has provided that in the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991 in Rule 7, for the words "rupees two hundred and fifty" the words "rupees fifty" shall be substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from the 25th January, 1994. Section 3 of this Act has provided that in the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991 in Rule 7, for the words "rupees two hundred and fifty" the words "rupees fifty" shall be substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from the 25th January, 1994. The validation provision was also made that notwithstanding any Judgment, decree or order of any court or authority any amount deposited as security under Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1991 during the period commencing from the 25th January, 1994 and ending on the 3rd June, 1995 shall be deemed to have been validly deposited in accordance with the aforesaid rules and shall not be called in question in any court on the ground merely that security deposit as prescribed has not been paid and accordingly no petition or other proceedings challenged on the ground merely that the security deposit as prescribed has not been paid, shall be maintained or continued in any court and where any petition or other proceeding has been dismissed before the commencement of this Act on the ground that necessary amount of security deposit was not paid, it shall be restored and continued as if the provisions of this Act had been in force at all material times when such petition was filed. The validation provision provides 2 terminus dates i.e. commencing from the 25th January, 1994 and ending on the 3rd June, 1995. 6. Present election petition was filed on 30th June, 1994 with a deposit of security amount of Rs. 50/-. The trial Court dismissed the election petition on the basis that requisite amount of security deposit was not deposited. 7. In view of above Validation Act, the dismissal of the election petition was not competent. The writ petition accordingly succeeds. Impugned order dated 31-5-1995 (Annexure-P-3 to the petition), passed by the Election Tribunal in the election petition filed by Loknath Singh is set aside. The matter is remanded to the election Tribunal for deciding afresh accepting that the security deposit was properly made.