Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER before this Court is an election petitioner. He had challenged the election of respondent No. 2, Prabhu who was declared as elected to the post, of Member of the Zila Panchayat Ratlam. ( 2. ) ELECTIONS to the post of Member of the Zila Panchayat Ratlam were held on January 29, 2005. Respondent No. 2 Prabhu, was declared as a winning candidate. Vide an election petition filed on February 28, 2005 under the provisions of section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evem Gram swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Act), the petitioner challenged the aforesaid election. Vide an order dated July 26, 2005, the election petition filed by the said election petitioner was dismissed holding the same to be barred by limitation. ( 3. ) IT further appears from the record that the order dated July 26, 2005 passed by the Specified Authority (Competent Authority under section 122 of the act) was challenged by the election petitioner under section 91 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. An order dated November 8, 2005 appears to have been passed by the appellate Authority whereby the aforesaid appeal filed by the election petitioner was dismissed by observing that no sufficient cause had been shown for delay in filing the election petition. Thereafter a review/revision petition was filed by the election petitioner against the order dated November 8, 2005. The said review/revision petition has been dismissed by the State Government vide order dated August 21, 2006. In the order dated August 21, 2006, the State government has noticed that the Rules 3 and 5 of the Appeal and Revision Rules as well as section 91 of the Act were not applicable to an election petition. Although, certain observations on merit of the controversy have also been made in the said order but ultimately, the revision petition has been dismissed as not maintainable. ( 4. ) IT is in these circumstances that the election petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition challenging the original order dated July 26, 2005 passed by the Specified Authority. ( 5. ) A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri A. K. Sethi, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2 to the effect that since the election petitioner has not challenged two orders viz. ( 5. ) A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri A. K. Sethi, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2 to the effect that since the election petitioner has not challenged two orders viz. orders dated November 3, 2005 and August 21, 2006 passed by the State Government, therefore, the present petition filed by the election petitioner challenging merely the order dated July 26, 2005 is not maintainable. On that basis Shri Sethi has maintained that the original order dated July 26, 2005 stood merged in the later orders dated November 8, 2005 and august 21, 2006 and therefore, in absence of a challenge to the said orders, the original order could not have been challenged. ( 6. ) I am unable to agree with the aforesaid preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior counsel. A perusal of section 122 of the Act shows that a complete code has been provided for challenging of an election by way of an election petition. The election petition has to be tried in terms of the Madhya pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for membership) Rules, 1995. ( 7. ) SINCE special, specific and distinct rules have been framed for filing an election petition under section 122 of the Act, therefore, neither section 91 of the act providing for an appeal nor the M. P. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, have any application to an order passed by the Specified Authority. A perusal of Rule 25 of the Election Petition Rules further shows that the orders/decisions of the Specified Authority are final. If the contention raised by shri Sethi were to be accepted, it would not only be against the spirit of the Rules and the Act but shall also create an additional forum for the winning candidate/election petitioner, to challenge the orders passed by the Specified authority in an election petition, by raising a challenge before the State government. The intention of the Act and Rules is clear, when it provides for finality of the decision taken by the Specified Authority. The order passed by the specified Authority and any decision taken in the election petition, can only be challenged by an aggrieved party by approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 8. The intention of the Act and Rules is clear, when it provides for finality of the decision taken by the Specified Authority. The order passed by the specified Authority and any decision taken in the election petition, can only be challenged by an aggrieved party by approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 8. ) SINCE, when passing the order dated August 21, 2006 the State government had specifically taken a view that the provisions of section 91 of the act were not applicable therefore, the orders dated November 8, 2006 and august 21, 2006 passed in appeal/revision/review by the State Government are absolutely of no consequence and are in fact without any jurisdiction. ( 9. ) I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the parties on merits of the controversy also. ( 10. ) IT is not in dispute that the elections had been held on January 29, 2005. Respondent No. 2 was declared as elected Member of Zila Panchayat. An election petition was maintainable within a period of 30 days. The election petitioner filed the election petition on February 28, 2005. As per the provisions of the General Clauses Act, the day on which the elections were held in January 29, had to be excluded for computing the period of limitation. Thus, the election petition had been filed within the period of limitation. Even otherwise it is fairly informed by the learned counsel for the parties that February 27, 2005 was a sunday. Thus, the election petition had been filed on next opening day i. e. February 28, 2005. ( 11. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the present petition is allowed. The order dated July 26, 2005 passed by the Specified Authority is set aside. The election petition filed by the petitioner is restored back to its original number and is declared to have been filed within limitation and shall be tried by the Specified Authority in accordance with law. ( 12. ) SINCE the matter has remained pending in controversy on account of the wrong rejection order passed by the Specified Authority, therefore, the Specified authority is now directed to dispose of the election petition within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. ( 13. ) THE parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the Specified authority Ujjain on October 29, 2007. Petition allowed.