JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner had contested election of Sarpanch in the Gram Panchayat Samarsinga and had lost the election. Respondent No. 1 was declared duly elected Sarpanch. 2. The petitioner had challenged election of respondent No.1 by filing election petition bearing number **ekeyk Ø- 11 v& 89¼21½@2009&2010 , which was dismissed by the Election Tribunal for non-compliance of mandatory condition of depositing Rs. 500/- as petition fee with the specified officer provided in section 122 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evan Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 read with Rule 7 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Currupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. 3. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal dismissing his election petition. 4. Heard on this writ petition. 5. Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had deposited election petition fee of Rs. 500/- by way of challan in the treasury as per Annexure P/3 and therefore according to him, the election petition could not have been dismissed on technical ground that the election petition fee was required to be deposited with the specified officer mentioned in section 122 of the Act. I am sorry, I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with this submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The provision for deposit of election petition fee with the specified officer contained in section 122 read with Rule 7 of the Act are mandatory in nature. The petitioner could not have changed the course of procedure prescribed for filing of election petition• provided in section 122 of the Act and take advantage of his own fault since the election petition fee deposited by the petitioner in the treasury cannot be treated as deposit with the authority specified in section 122 of the Act and therefore the election petition filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed as not maintainable by the Election Tribunal. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction over the Tribunals. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is therefore dismissed in limine.