JUDGMENT : Heard on admission. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner calls in question the order dated 22-09-2010 passed by Sub Divisional officer-cum- Specified Officer, Chhatarpur, in Election Case No. 01/A-89 A-21/2009-10; whereby, an election petition under section 122 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short the Act of 1993) preferred by the petitioner against the election of respondent No. 2 as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Deri, disrict Chhatarpur, has been dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of provision contained under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the M. P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1995). Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of 1995 provides that " An election Petition shall be presented to the Specified Officer during the office hours by the person making the petition, or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition." The petitioner does not dispute that presentation of election petition was by his counsel, who has filed the same on the basis of auhorisation tendered in his favour. To substantiate the submissions put forth, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the 'Vakalatnama' brought on record vide I.A. No. 5015/11. It is urged that in the 'Vakalatnama', against the caption " izdj.k dk fo"k; ", there is a mention of section 122 of the Act of 1993. It is urged that the same should be construed as an 'authorisation by the petitioner' in favour of his counsel to file the election petition. The expression 'authorisation' as per the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition) means "the conferment of legality; formal warrant or sanction". In plain words it indicate that possessing of authority, legal or rightful power, the synonym of which is competency. Vakalatnama executed in favour of the counsel may authorise him to plead the case but unless there is specific authorisation rendering such a person competent to present an election petition as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 3, the vakalatnama ipso facto would not qualify the special authorisation. No other material is brought on record to show a specific authorisation in favour of the counsel to present the election petition. No other material is brought on record to show a specific authorisation in favour of the counsel to present the election petition. The provision of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of Rules of 1995 is mandatory in nature as would be evident from a judgment in Tara v. Dabla alias Lalita and others; 2002 (3) MPL J 591, wherein it was observed by his Lordship : "7. The present factual matrix has to be tested on the anvil of the aforesaid enunciation of law. I have perused election petition which was filed on 25-2-2000. On a scrutiny of the endorsement made in the election petition it is quite vivid that the election petitioner had not presented the election petition. It was presented by the counsel of the petitioner. I have also scrutinised the 'Vakalatnama' which was filed along with the election petition. On a scrutiny of the language employed in the 'Vakalatnama' it does not transpire that there was any authorisation authorising the counsel to present the election petition before the Specified Officer. The 'Vakalatnama' in question is couched in general terms and there is no specific authorisation and, hence, it cannot be said that the counsel was authorised in writing for presenting the election petition before the Election Tribunal. Thus, the law laid down in the case of Suman Santosh (supra) would squarely be applicable to the case at hand. " In view whereof this Court is of considered opinion that the Specified Officer did not falter in rejecting the election petition in exercise of his power of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1995. In the result, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, no costs.