ORDER Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. Shri Paritosh Trivedi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Shri D.R. Vishwakarma, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri S.P. Rai, learned Govt. Advocate for Respondent No. 3. With consent of learned Counsel for parties the petition is heard finally. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 3-5-2010 passed by Respondent No. 3 in an election petition preferred by Respondent No. 1. 3. Election Petition under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhihiyam, 1993 is directed against the election of the Petitioner as Sarpahch of Village Panchayat, Kohka in an election held on 18- 1-2010. On being served, Petitioner herein, who was Respondent No. 1 in the election petition has raised an objection under Rule 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (Rules of 1995 for short) for dismissal of election petition on the ground of non-compliance of provisions of Rules 3,4 and 7. 4. It was stated that the additional copy of election petition was not accompanied with election petition and mat other candidates who contested the election were not impleaded as Respondents. The specified officer before dwelling upon the objections raised by the Petitioner herein in respect of maintainability of election petition for want of compliance of provisions contained in Rules 3, 4 and 7, entertained an application filed by Respondent No. 1 (the election Petitioner) under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Order 1, Rule 10 and allowed her to implead other contesting candidates as Respondents. The Petitioner is aggrieved of this order passed by the Specified Officer. 5. It is contended that compliance of Rules 3, 4 and 7 is mandatory and it must be done at the time when the election petition is filed under Section 122 of the Act of 1993. It is contended that it was beyond the powers of Specified Officer to have proceeded with trial of election petition unless there was a compliance of Rules 3, 4 and 7. It is contended that the impugned order has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 6. Reliance, in support of the proposition that the provisions 6th Rules should have been mandatorily adhered to is placed on judgment in Rama Banjara v. Kanchhedilal 1998(1) MPWN 63 at Page 90. It is contended that the impugned order has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 6. Reliance, in support of the proposition that the provisions 6th Rules should have been mandatorily adhered to is placed on judgment in Rama Banjara v. Kanchhedilal 1998(1) MPWN 63 at Page 90. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance on judgment by Division Bench in Sarla Tripathi Smt. v. Smt. Kaushilya Devi and Ors. 2004 (2) JLJ 263 to substantiate the submission that even before expiry of period of limitation no rectification can be sought, if the election petition suffers from basic defects. It is further contended that Rule 8 of Rules 1995 categorically lays down -that if the provisions of Rules 3 or 4 or 7 has not been complied with, the petition shall be dismissed by the Specified Officer. It is contended that since the election petition filed by Respondent No. 1 was suffering from inherent defect because of non impleadment of necessary party, the same ought to have been dismissed at the threshold. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 on his turn has to submit that though Rule 4 requires that all the contesting candidates should be impleaded as party in an election petition, when the same is filed; however, there is no bar to remove the defect within the period of limitation. It is contended that the election of Petitioner was notified on 3-2-2010 and the election petition was filed on 17-2-2010 and an application seeking amendment in the cause title was filed on 3-3-2010. It is contended that since the Applicant was within the period of limitation of 30 days from the date of notification, the Specified Officer was Justified in allowing the same the Petitioner to implead other candidate as Respondent. It is contended that for the said minor defect of non-impleadment of other candidate as Respondent having been cured within the period of limitation within which an election petition has to be filed, the same cannot be the ground for rejection of election petition. 8. The proposition propitiated by learned Counsel for Respondent when examined on the touchstone of relevant Rules does not lend any help to the Respondent. 9. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1995 provides for: 4. 8. The proposition propitiated by learned Counsel for Respondent when examined on the touchstone of relevant Rules does not lend any help to the Respondent. 9. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1995 provides for: 4. Parties to the petition.-- Where the Petitioner in addition to claiming a declaration that the election, of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected he shall join as Respondents to his petition all the contesting candidates at the election. 10. Rule 8 stipulates the procedure to be followed on receiving petition and is couched in mandatory terms that "if the provisions of Rule 3 or Rule 4 or Rule 7 have not been complied with, the prescribed authority shall dismiss the petition. Provided that the petition shall not be dismissed without giving the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard." 11. The proviso appended with Rule 18 does not postulate that an opportunity of hearing would also mean an opportunity to implead necessary party and rectify the inherent defects. The specified officer could not have proceeded further with the trial of election petition unless the stipulations contained under Rules 3, 4 and 7 are fully complied with. In this respect context can be had of the judgment in Rama Banjara v. Kanchhedilal 1998 (1) MPWN 63 at Page 90. 12. This view is supported by a judgment of Division Bench in Amol Singh v. Hameer Singh 1996 MPLJ 39 : 1997 (1) VB 152 wherein it was observed: 4. The consequence of non-compliance of Rules 3 and 7 has been provided under Rule 8. It does not leave any alternative with the authority but the dismissal of the petition. The reproduction of Rule 8 at this stage is necessary. 8. Procedure on receiving petition -- If the provisions of Rule 3 or Rule 4 or Rule 7 have been not complied with, the prescribed authority shall dismiss the petition: Provided that the petition shall not be dismissed without giving the Petitioners an opportunity of being heard. 5. Much stress has been laid on the proviso of Rule 8 contending that the election petition cannot be dismissed even if there be the noncompliance of the Rules unless the election-Petitioner was allowed opportunity of being heard. 5. Much stress has been laid on the proviso of Rule 8 contending that the election petition cannot be dismissed even if there be the noncompliance of the Rules unless the election-Petitioner was allowed opportunity of being heard. The contention advanced in support of the plea is that in cases of default either under Rule 3 or under Rule 7, the prescribed authority was vested with the power to condone the default after getting it rectified. It is contended that only such construction of the proviso would be in line with the Act and the spirit of the expression, 'opportunity of being heard'. 8. The construction of the proviso to Rule 8 cannot be made so liberal so as to invest in the prescribed authority, the power to seek rectification of mistake in case of non-compliance of rules by election Petitioner. If after hearing the election Petitioner, the non-compliance of Rules 3 and 7 is found, the Prescribed Authority is left with no choice but to dismiss the petition. It is a settled rule of interpretation and construction of a proviso that thereby operation of main provision becomes conditional. The provisions of law have to be given the meaning, which they seek to convey if there is no ambiguity in the language used. The proviso to Rule 8 only indicates that before dismissing the petition for the non-compliance of the rules, the Authority shall hear the election-Petitioner so as to enable rum to satisfy whether in fact there was no non-compliance of the rules and that the requirements of the rules were satisfied. 13. In view whereof this Court is the considered opinion that a patent illegality has been committed by Specified Officer in allowing the application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Order 1, Rule 10 by permitting Respondent No. 1 to implead contesting candidate as additional Respondent. 14. In the result the impugned order is hereby quashed. Since Respondent No. 1 has failed to comply the provisions of Rule 4 of Rules of 1995, the election petition filed by her stands rejected. 15. The petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs.