JUDGMENT M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J. 1. The short point of consideration in this petition filed under Art.227, Constitution of India is whether Election Petitioner shall sign each page of the copy of the Election Petition served on the respondent. 2. Petitioner is the elected candidate of Ward No. 3, Thiruvilwamala General Constituency in the election to the Pazhayannur Block Panchayath held on 24/09/2005. First respondent filed OP 265 of 2005 before First Additional District Court, Trichur to set aside the election of the petitioner. Petitioner contended that election petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed under S.93(1) of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act as copy of the election petition furnished to the petitioner contains only one signature at the bottom of last page of the election petition and therefore, there is non compliance with the mandatory provisions of sub-section (2) of S.89 of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The learned District Judge rejected said contention and held that the election petition is not liable to dismissed, under S.93(1). It is challenged in petition filed under Art.227 of Constitution of India. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent were heard. 4. Learned senior counsel argued that under sub-section (2) of S.89 of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) every election petition shall be accompanied by copy of the election petition mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition and that under S.93(1) the Court may dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions on S.89 of the Act and therefore, the election petition should have been dismissed under S.93(1) of the Act. Learned Counsel pointed out that in the copy of the election petition served on the petitioner first respondent has signed only at the bottom of the last page of the election petition stating as true copy and there is no signature in the other pages of the copy of the election petition and therefore, there is non compliance with the mandatory provision. Reliance was placed on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court (as his Lordship then was) in A. Mohammed v. Nalakath Soopy, 1997 KHC 131 : 1997 (1) KLJ 618 : ILR 1997 (3) Ker. Reliance was placed on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court (as his Lordship then was) in A. Mohammed v. Nalakath Soopy, 1997 KHC 131 : 1997 (1) KLJ 618 : ILR 1997 (3) Ker. 282 : 1997 (1) KLT 697 where relying on the decisions of the Apex Court it was held that affixing of at least another signature at the bottom of the concerned pages even if there be no attestation as true copy, by the petitioner was needed for substantial compliance with the requirements of attestation as true copies within the meaning of sub-section (3) of S.81 of Representation of People Act. Learned counsel also relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Kaveri Amma v. Devaki, 1996 KHC 286 : 1996 (1) KLJ 845 : ILR 1996 (3) Ker. 258 : 1996 (2) KLT 189 where also it was held that there should be signature in each page of the copy of the election petition which is intended to be served on the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent relied on the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in Bindu Vijayakumaran Nair v. Bindu Rajappan, 2001 KHC 688 : 2001 (2) KLJ 280 : 2001 (3) KLT 155 where relying on the decision of the Apex Court in (F. A. Sapa v. Sinchora, 1991 KHC 982 : AIR 1991 SC 1557 : 1991 (3) SCC 375 ) it was held that the election petitioners need attest copy of the election petition only at the last page and failure to attest copy of the election petition, as true copy in all pages of the election petition is not fatal and is not a non compliance of sub-section (2) of S.89 of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 5. This question whether election petitioner has to attest every page of the copy of the election petition filed along with the election petition to be served on the respondents is settled by the Apex Court in M. Kamalam v. V. A. S. Mohammed, 1978 KHC 90 : AIR 1978 SC 840 : 1978 KLT 349 it was a case where the election petition was accompanied by an affidavit. The election petitioner had affixed his signature only at the bottom of the copy of the affidavit accompanying the copy of election petition. The election petitioner had affixed his signature only at the bottom of the copy of the affidavit accompanying the copy of election petition. Their Lordships held that copy of the affidavit constituted the end portion of the copy of the election petition and the signature placed by the election petitioner at the foot of the copy of the election petition was clearly referable to the entire copy preceding it and it authenticated the whole of the copy of the election petition to be a true copy. It was held. 6. Now, it is true that no signature was appended by the appellant on the copy of the election petition proper and the signature was placed only at the foot of the copy of the affidavit, but that, in our opinion, was sufficient compliance with the requirement of the last part of sub-section (3) of S.81. The copy of the affidavit was, for reasons already discussed, part of the copy of the election petition and when the appellant put her signature at the foot of the copy of the election petition and when the appellant put her signature at the foot of the copy of the affidavit, it was tantamount to appending signature on the copy of the election petition. The law does not require that the authenticating signature must be made by the petitioner at any particular place in the copy of the election petition. It may be at the top of the copy or in the middle or at the end. The place of the signature is immaterial so long as it appears that it is intended to authenticate the copy. When original signature is made by the petitioner on the copy of the election petition it can safely be presumed, as pointed out by this Court in Ch. Subbarao's case, AIR 1964 SC 1027 (supra), that the signature is made by the petitioner by was of authenticating the document to be a true copy of the election petition. Now, here the appellant placed her signature in original at the foot of the copy of affidavit and the copy of the affidavit was part of a composite document, namely, copy of the election petition, and hence the signature of the appellant must be regarded as having been appended on the copy of the election petition. Now, here the appellant placed her signature in original at the foot of the copy of affidavit and the copy of the affidavit was part of a composite document, namely, copy of the election petition, and hence the signature of the appellant must be regarded as having been appended on the copy of the election petition. In fact, the copy of the affidavit constituted the end portion of the copy of the election petition and the signature placed by the appellant at the foot of the copy of the affidavit was, therefore, clearly referable to the entire copy preceding it and it authenticated the whole of the copy of the election petition to be a true copy. We cannot, in the circumstances, accept the contention of the respondent that the copy of the election petition was not attested by the appellant under her own signature to be a true copy of the petition. The requirement of the last part of sub-section (3) of S.81 was compiled with by the appellant inasmuch as the copy of the election petition was authenticated to be a true copy by the appellant by placing her signature at the foot of the copy of the affidavit which formed part of the copy of the election petition. The High Court was clearly in error in dismissing the election petition under sub-section (1) of S.86. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in M. Kamalam v. V. A. S. Mohammed, 1978 KHC 90 : 1978 KLT 349 : AIR 1978 SC 840 the question is no more res integra. There is no non compliance with the provision of sub-section (2) of S.89 of the Act. The election petition cannot be dismissed under S.93(1) of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act as there was no non compliance of the provisions of S.89(2) of the Act. In such circumstances the writ petition is dismissed.