B.P. Katakey, J.:- Heard Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Biswas, learned coun­sel appearing for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. Das, learned State counsel appear­ing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The petitioner, who is the returned can­didate and respondent in Misc. Case No.3/2008(filed the Election Petition No.1/2008), by the present petition has challenged the or­der dated 6th September, 2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Morigaon rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for dismissal of the election petition on the ground of non discloser of cause of action, however, allow­ing the prayer of the petitioner for striking out the pleadings in paragraph-4 of the election petition. 3. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel sub­mits that it is evident from paragraph-15 of the impugned order dated 6th September, 2008 that the Election Tribunal wants to make a roving enquiry without their being any basis in the election petition alleging any anomalies in the counting in respect of the other polling stations, though initially 355 votes polled by the election petitioner was wrongly counted in favour of the returned candidate, which, was subsequently corrected during recount­ing and thereafter, the returned candidate was declared as elected he having secured 140 votes more than the election petitioner. Mr. Choudhury submits that it is a settled position of law that unless the material facts are pleaded and material particulars are supplied in support of the allegation so as to entitle the election petitioner to get an order for recount, the election petitioner cannot be allowed to make roving enquiry to fish out the evidence for the purpose of directing the recounting. Mr. Choudhury submits that the observation of the Election Tribunal in paragraph-15 would amount to allowing the election peti­tioner to make a roving enquiry and lead evi­dence even in the absence of any pleadings in that regard. Mr. Choudhury, therefore, sub­mits that the observation made in paragraph-15 may be set aside. Mr. Choudhury submits that the observation of the Election Tribunal in paragraph-15 would amount to allowing the election peti­tioner to make a roving enquiry and lead evi­dence even in the absence of any pleadings in that regard. Mr. Choudhury, therefore, sub­mits that the observation made in paragraph-15 may be set aside. It has also been submit­ted that since admittedly the learned District Judge, i.e. the Election Tribunal, constituted under Section 127 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (in short, "the 1994 Act"), was absent on the day when the election petition was presented, there was no proper presen­tation of the election petition, the same hav­ing been presented in the office of the learned District Judge and as such, the election petition deserves to be dismissed being not pre­sented in the manner prescribed. 4. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, has submitted that since the learned District Judge, who was appointed as Election Tri­bunal by the State Government under Sec­tion 127 of the Act was absent, the election petition was presented in the office of the learned District Judge. It has been submitted that as no particular manner of presentation has been prescribed in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, the presentation of the election petition in the office of the learned District Judge would amount to presentation before the Election Tribunal and hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the pe­titioner in that regard deserves to be rejected. 5. Relating to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner of allowing the elec­tion petitioner to make roving enquiry, in view of the observation made in paragraph-15 of the impugned order, it has been submitted by Mr. Biswas that it is a settled position of law that the election petitioner cannot be allowed to make roving enquiry and he will lead evi­dence on the basis of the pleadings in the elec­tion petition only. The learned counsel further submits that in any case, the observation made by the Election Tribunal in paragraph-15 of the impugned order would naturally not be taken into consideration while deciding the election petition filed. 6. The learned counsel further submits that in any case, the observation made by the Election Tribunal in paragraph-15 of the impugned order would naturally not be taken into consideration while deciding the election petition filed. 6. Section 129 of the 1994 Act provides that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election peti­tion presented within 60(sixty) days, from the date of declaration of election results, to the Tribunal constituted under Section 127 which provides for constitution of the Election Tri­bunal by the State Government, on the recommendation of the High Court to, dispose of all direct election petitions challenging elec­tion under the provisions of the said Act. It also provides that the jurisdiction, powers and functions and the headquarters of the Tribu­nal shall be decided by the Government in consultation with the High Court, except as provided in Section 10 of the Act. 7. The Government of Assam vide notifi­cation dated 30th September, 2000 notified the Election Tribunals to decide the election disputes. For the district of Morigaon the learned District Judge was appointed as Elec­tion Tribunal. By the said notification the pro­cedure required to be followed by the Tribunal has also been notified, which provides that the election petition to be filed under Section 129 of the Act shall be in the form of a memo­randum containing the grounds or the reasons for being aggrieved and the same has to be accompanied by as many as copies as may be required to be served upon the opposite parties. The Election Tribunal on receipt of the application alongwith the copies thereof is required to issue notices to the opposite party/opposite parties requiring him/them to appear and file written statement on such date as may be specified in the notice, which shall be accompanied by copy of the election pe­tition. 8. Rule 54 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 (in short, "the Rules"), framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 141 of the Act provides that as regards other matters not provided in the Rules, the matter shall be guided 'by the relevant Rules under the Rep­resentation of Peoples Act, 1951 (in short, " 1951 Act"). According to the learned coun­sel for the petitioner, the provision contained in Section 81 of the 1951 Act read with Rule ' 1 of Chapter-VIII (A) of the Gauhati High Court Rules, which provides for the manner of presentation of election petition, shall be applicable, there being no Rules relating to the presentation of election petition under the 1994 Act prescribed. 9. As noticed above, Section 127 of the Act empowers the Government to decide about the jurisdictions, powers and functions and the headquarters of the Election Tribunal in consultation with the High Court. Vide no­tification dated 30th September, 2000, the Government of Assam while constituting the Panchayat Election Tribunal with the territo­rial jurisdiction, has also laid down the pro­cedure to be followed by the Tribunal in deciding an election petition. 10. Neither any manner of presumption nor the officer before whom such election petition is to be presented has been pre­scribed either in the Act or in the notification or the Rules framed in that regard. Section 81 (1) of the 1951 Act also does not provide for the manner of presentation of an election petition and before whom the same is to be presented, to constitute a valid presentation. The provisions of Rule-1 of Chapter-VIII (A) of the Gauhati High Court, however, has provided for presentation of the election petition under Section 80-A of the 1951 Act., before the Stamp Reporter, which provision cannot be made applicable to the presenta­tion of the election petition under the provisions of 1994 Act, the said Rule being appli­cable to the presentation of the election peti­tion under the 1951 Act to the High Court only. In the absence of any manner of such presentation, it cannot be said that the elec­tion petition must be personally presented to the learned District Judge himself only, so as to constitute a valid presentation. Such a con­tention, as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted, as there may be situation like the present case in hand, when the learned District Judge, who is ap­pointed as Election Tribunal, is absent and in that case, can it be said that no election peti­tion can be filed by a candidate, who is ag­grieved by the election of the returned candi­date, because of the absence of the learned District Judge? The answer obviously is- no. The answer obviously is- no. hi the case in hand, the election petition was filed in the office of the learned District Judge. There being no manner laid down for pre­sentation of the election petition requiring pre­sentation only before the learned District Judge, the contention that the presentation in the office of the learned District Judge does not constitute valid presentation cannot be accepted and hence rejected. 11. An election petition cannot be thrown out at the threshold on the slightest pretext of one kind or other, which may or may not have any material bearing on the factors to be strictly adhered to in such matters. It is the substance not the form which would matter, otherwise the returned candidate would not only be in the look out microscopically for any kind of technical lacunae or defect to abort the endeavour of the election petitioner to bring to trial the issues involved in the election peti­tion. It is also a well settled position of law that the procedures are hand-maid of justice designed to facilitate the justice and not to trim the same at the threshold. 12. The other contention of the petitioner is that the Election Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the election petitioner to make roving enquiry without their being any basis in the pleadings. It is a settled position of law that in the democratic set up the sanctity of the election is to be maintained, and the election of a returned candidate, unless otherwise proved to be in violation of the pro­visions of the Act and/or the Rules, is pre­sumed to be valid. The election petitioner has to plead material facts constituting the grounds for interfering with the democratic process, i.e. the election of the returned candidate. Unless the basis is laid in the pleadings, no amount of evidence can allowed to be laid. Naturally no roving enquiry can also allowed to be made by the election petitioner unless of course there is sufficient pleadings. 13. As noticed above, no roving enquiry can allowed to be made by the election petitioner and hence, the election petitioner would be allowed to lead evidence only on the basis of the pleadings in the election petition. Naturally no roving enquiry can also allowed to be made by the election petitioner unless of course there is sufficient pleadings. 13. As noticed above, no roving enquiry can allowed to be made by the election petitioner and hence, the election petitioner would be allowed to lead evidence only on the basis of the pleadings in the election petition. The Election Tribunal will decide the election pe­tition without being influenced by the obser­vations made in paragraph-15 of the im­pugned order and also allow the election pe­titioner to lead evidence on the basis of the pleadings only. 14. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Since the term of the returned candidate is going to be over by Janu­ary, 2013, the Election Tribunal is directed to make an endeavour to decide the election petition well ahead of the expiry of the term of the election.