ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 28.6.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Revenue Division, Shahdol and Election Tribunal in Election Petition Case No.36/Election Petition/2009-10. 2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner is the elected President of the Zila Panchayat, Shahdol. The respondent No.3, being aggrieved by the election of the petitioner, filed a election petition under the provisions of section 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Adhiniyam’) and rule 8 of M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) before the Election Tribunal/Commissioner, Revenue Division, Shahdol. 3. The petitioner filed a preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the election petition on the ground that the election petition had not been filed by the respondent No.3 herself but had been filed by her advocate who was not specifically authorized to do so and that the copies of the election petition filed by the respondent No.3 did not contain a specific attestation to the effect that they were true copies of the election petition. It was urged that in view of the aforesaid, the election petition, filed by respondent No.3, did not comply with the mandatory requirement of rule 3 of the Rules and was, therefore, required to be dismissed under rules 8 and 21 of the Rules. The aforesaid objections of the petitioner has been rejected by the Election Tribunal by the impugned order dated 28.6.2010 being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. The aforesaid objections of the petitioner has been rejected by the Election Tribunal by the impugned order dated 28.6.2010 being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that rule 3 of the Rules provides that the election petition has to be filed and presented by the election petitioner herself or through a person specially authorized by her to do so but in the instant case the election petition was filed by the respondent No.3 through her advocate without any specific or special authorization as required by the Rules but was filed along with a general and usual Vakalatnama which did not authorize him to file the election petition and, therefore, there is no compliance of the mandatory provisions of rule 3 of the Rules, as has been held by this Court in the case of Suman Santosh Kumar Patel v. Bhanwati Mahesh Pratap Patel and another [ 1999(1) MPLJ 88 ], Tara v. Dabla alias Lalita and others [2002(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 157= 2002(2) MPHT 554 ], and Kana Mandal (Smt.) v. State of M.P. and others [ 2010(III) MPWN 47 =2010(3) MPHT 278]. 5. It is further submitted that in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Baijulal Verma v. Additional Collector, Chhindwara and others [ 2010(1) MPHT 477 ], in the absence of the requisite attestation, the petition filed by the respondent No.3 deserves to be dismissed. It is urged that the aforesaid aspect has not properly been considered by the Election Tribunal and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 6. The petitioner has also brought on record the fact that the respondent No.3 had previously filed another election petition under the same Rules, however, section 36 of the Adhiniyam was also mentioned in the said election petition which was dismissed by the same Election Tribunal by order dated 19.2.2010 by clearly holding that the election petition under section 36 of the Adhiniyam was not maintainable and also in view of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of rules 3, 4 and 7 of the Rules, but the Tribunal totally ignoring the aforesaid has entertained the second petition filed by respondent No.3 which is contrary to law. 7. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3, per contra, submits that the election petitioner respondent No.3 was herself present along with her counsel on 24.2.2010 for presenting the petition before the prescribed authority and, therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sheodan Singh v. Mohan Lal Gautam [ AIR 1969 SC 1024 ], wherein while interpreting the provisions of section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which is not pari materia to rule 3 of the Rules, has held that presence of the petitioner at the time of presentation would amount to proper presentation and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 further submits that mere omission to mention the words “attested true copy” in the copies of the election petition would not entail dismissal of the election petition as has been held by this Court in the case of Mrs. Indira Singh v. Anjana Sharma and others [2007(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 169= 2006(4) MPHT 152 ]. Relying on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 that the order passed by the Tribunal is in conformity with law as it does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. From a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner along with the petition as well as the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the election petition, filed by the respondent No.3, was in fact prepared on 23.2.2010 and was thereafter presented and filed on 25.2.2010 as is evident from the first page of the copy of the election petition filed by the petitioner along with the petition as Annexure P-4 and the order sheet of the Election Tribunal, Annexure P-5. This fact is also clear from the endorsement made by the officer, who has received the election petition, on the front page of the election petition wherein he has clearly stated the date as 25.2.2010. This fact is also clear from the endorsement made by the officer, who has received the election petition, on the front page of the election petition wherein he has clearly stated the date as 25.2.2010. The order sheet dated 25.2.2010, Annexure P-5, also indicates that the election petition was in fact presented by one Shri D.P. Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.3. 9. The respondent No.3 in the reply to the objections filed by the petitioner before the Election Tribunal, copy of which has been filed along with the petition as Annexure P-7, has clearly stated that the election petition was in fact presented on 24.2.2010 by the advocate along with whom the election petitioner respondent No.3 was present and was taken up for hearing on 25.2.2010. However, the contention of the respondent No.3 is apparently incorrect in view of the order sheet dated 25.2.2010, Annexure P-5, read in juxtaposition with the front page of the election petition, Annexure P-4, which clearly establishes that the election petition was in fact filed on 25.2.2010 and not on 24.2.2010 as stated by the respondent No.3 in her reply to the objections filed by the petitioner. 10. Admittedly, there is no averment or assertion on the part of the respondent No.3 that she was present along with her advocate on 25.2.2010 and, therefore, the absence of the respondent No.3 on 25.2.2010 is undisputed. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 28.6.2010 it is further clear that the Election Tribunal, while deciding the petitioner’s objections, has totally overlooked this factual aspect namely that the election petitioner respondent No.3 was not present along with her advocate on 25.2.2010 and, therefore, was not present when the election petition was actually filed on 25.2.2010. 11. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 28.6.2010 it is further clear that the Election Tribunal, while deciding the petitioner’s objections, has totally overlooked this factual aspect namely that the election petitioner respondent No.3 was not present along with her advocate on 25.2.2010 and, therefore, was not present when the election petition was actually filed on 25.2.2010. 11. I am also of the considered opinion that the reasoning given by the Election Tribunal for holding that the election petition was properly presented and for rejecting the petitioner’s objections to the effect that as the election petition and the documents had been signed by the election petitioner respondent No.3 herself and had been filed by her advocate, therefore, it was properly presented is apparently contrary to the provisions of rules 3 and 8 of the Rules as well as the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Suman Santosh Kumar Patel (supra); Tara (supra), and Kana Mandal (Smt.) (supra), wherein it has specifically been held that the election petition has to be filed by the election petitioner herself/himself or by a person specifically authorized in that behalf and that a general Vakalatnama which does not specifically authorize the advocate to present the election petition does not amount to compliance of the provisions of rule 3(2) of the Rules. 12. Here it would be appropriate to state that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheodan Singh (supra), is also misplaced and misconceived as the factual situation and matrix obtaining in the present petition is not identical or similar to the factual matrix obtaining in the matter before the Supreme Court inasmuch as while it was an established fact in the case of Sheodan Singh (supra), that the election petitioner was present at the time of presentation of the election petition, in the instant case there is no averment and in fact it is an undenied fact that the petitioner was not present along with her advocate on 25.2.2010 on the date the election petition was presented, on the contrary the assertion regarding the presence of the election petitioner respondent No.3 along with her advocate which has been specifically mentioned by her in her reply to the objections filed by the petitioner, Annexure P-7, is that she was present on 24.2.2010 and not 25.2.2010. 13. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the decisions of this Court, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 28.6.2010 deserves to be set aside on this count alone. As I propose to set aside the impugned order on this count alone, I do not think it necessary to advert to the other issues raised by the petitioner in the present petition. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that as the petition, filed by the election petitioner respondent No.3, was not presented by her in accordance with the requirement of rule 3 of the Rules by presenting it herself or through an authorized advocate, therefore, it was required to be rejected and dismissed in view of the provisions of rules 3, 8 and 21 of the Rules. 15. I am also of the considered opinion that in view of the facts, as discussed above, the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal dated 28.6.2010 being contrary to law suffers from the aforementioned infirmity and illegality, and therefore deserves to be and is hereby set aside. It is, accordingly, held that the election petition, filed by respondent No.3, stands dismissed and the petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed. 16. The petition, filed by the petitioner, stands allowed. There shall be no order as to the costs.