JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner was elected as the Pradhan. Respondent No. 3, being aggrieved by the election result, filed an election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). One of the grounds of attack was that the petitioner stood disqualified to contest the election as he was working as a clerk in a District Co-operative Bank and was holding an office of profit. 2. The petitioner contested the election petition contending that the election petition was not maintainable since the election petition was presented personally by respondent No. 3 and that the election petition was not presented through his counsel. It was also contended that the pre-requisite deposit of Rs. 50/- was not deposited under a particular head, which was fatal to the maintainability of the election petition. 3. Initially, the election petition was allowed ex parte. The recall application filed by the petitioner was rejected, against which, a revision was filed, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits. Respondent No. 3 filed a writ petition, which was dismissed. Thereafter the matter proceeded before the Tribunal and the petitioner moved an application for dismissal of the election petition on the ground that the deposit of Rs. 50/- towards security was not deposited under the correct head which was fatal to the maintainability of the election petition. Further, since the election petition was not presented by the candidate i.e. respondent No. 3, the same was not maintainable and therefore the election petition should be dismissed on that score. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the matter allowed the election petition. Respondent No. 3, being aggrieved filed a revision under Section 12-C (6), which was allowed. The revisional Court held that the objections raised by the petitioner were technical and curable in nature. The Court held that it was sufficient for the candidate i.e. respondent No. 3 to sign the petition and thereafter it could be presented by the counsel. The revisional Court also found that the amount of Rs. 50/- was deposited and consequently, held that the election petition was maintainable. The revisional Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide on merits. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the revisional order, has filed the present writ petition. 5. The revisional Court also found that the amount of Rs. 50/- was deposited and consequently, held that the election petition was maintainable. The revisional Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide on merits. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the revisional order, has filed the present writ petition. 5. The Court has heard Sri Rahul Agrawal assisted by Sri Nand Kishore Singh for the petitioner and Sri P.N.Saxena, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K.Pathak for the respondent. The contention of the petitioner, is that the election petition could not be filed through his Advocate and that it was mandatory for the respondent No. 3 to present the election petition personally. Since the same was not done, the same was fatal and the election petition could not be cured and was liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel also stressed that under the Act and the Rules framed therein, the amount of Rs. 50/- as security was required to be deposited under the Personal Ledger Account of the Gram Panchayat and that the same could not be deposited under any head. It was contended that since the amount was not deposited under the specific head, the election petition was liable to be dismissed under the proviso to Rule 3 readwith Rule 4 (vi) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994. 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submitted that the provisions are not mandatory and are only directory in nature and consequently, the election petition could not be dismissed on such technicalities. 7. In support of their submissions, the learned counsel for the parties placed reliance on various decisions, which will be mentioned at the appropriate place. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance upon the provisions of Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and submitted that the provision of Section 81 is more or less parimateria with the provision of Section 12-C(3) of the Act. For appropriate appreciation of this aspect Section 12-C(3) of the Act and Section 81 (1) of the Representation of People Act are extracted hereunder: 12 C(3). For appropriate appreciation of this aspect Section 12-C(3) of the Act and Section 81 (1) of the Representation of People Act are extracted hereunder: 12 C(3). “The application under sub-section (1) may be presented by any candidate at the election or any elector and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.” 81(1) “An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates.” A perusal of the aforesaid provisions indicate that an Election Petition may be presented by any candidate or by any elector. The common words used in both the provision are “election petition may be presented by any candidate at the election or any elector”. 8. The word “candidate” has been interpreted by a decision of this Court in Srimati Premlata v. Rajendra Pati and another, 1959 ALJ 741, wherein the Court held that the provision of the Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules indicate that the word “candidate” would not include the agent of the election petitioner nor includes his counsel and that the election petitioner was required to present the election petition personally and not through his counsel. 9. In Shams Khwaja v. Election Commission of India and another, 2002 (4) AWC 3448 (UHC), the Court considered the provision of Sections 81 and 86 of the Representation of People Act and held that an Election Petition cannot be presented through a special messenger and that it was mandatory for the election petitioner to present the election petition personally. 10. In G.V. Sreerama Reddy and another v. Returning Officer, AIR 2010 SC 133 , a similar controversy came up for consideration before the Supreme Court as to whether the election petition through a counsel could be presented under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act. The Supreme Court held that Section 81 is a mandatory provision and that the petition must be presented by the candidate personally holding that an election petition is a serious matter with a variety of consequences. The Supreme Court held that Section 81 is a mandatory provision and that the petition must be presented by the candidate personally holding that an election petition is a serious matter with a variety of consequences. Since such a petition may lead to the vitiation of a democratic process, any procedure provided by an election statute must be read strictly. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the election petition must be presented personally and the requirement of law was required to be fully satisfied. The Supreme Court, further held that failure to adhere such course would be contrary to the said provision and in that event the election petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of improper presentation. 11. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Umesh Challiyil v. K.P.Rajendran, 2008 STPL (LE) 39711 SC, which matter relates to verification of an affidavit, which was not done properly before the notary in the prescribed manner in the election petition. The Supreme Court held that the defect was innocuous and the Court will have to view it whether such objections go to the root of the matter or were only cosmetic in manner. 12. In the light of this decision, the learned Counsel submitted that the defect in the presentation of the petition was a curable defect and was not fatal. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon Lal Bahadur Singh v. Vishal Singh and others, 1963 ALJ 542, in which it was held that the election petition filed through a counsel was a curable defect. In the light of this decision, the learned counsel submitted that the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court, relied upon by the petitioner in Srimati Premlata (Supra) stands impliedly overruled. 13. Having heard the learned counsel at some length and having gone through the matter, the Court finds that the provision of Section 12-C(3) of the Act is more or less identical to the provision of Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act. Both these provisions provide that an election petition may be presented on one or more grounds by any candidate at the election or by any elector. 14. Both these provisions provide that an election petition may be presented on one or more grounds by any candidate at the election or by any elector. 14. The Supreme Court in G.V. Sreerama Reddy (Supra) has clearly held that the election petition is required to be filed by the petitioner personally and non filing of such petition personally would be fatal leading to the dismissal of the election petition. The said provision being mandatory was required to be applied strictly. The law is settled that if a particular action is required to be taken in accordance with certain provision of the Act, then that provision is required to be strictly followed. If a matter is required to be done in a particular manner, the same is to be done in that manner. 15. In the instant case, the Court finds that the respondent No. 3 has filed the election petition through his counsel. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner was present alongwith his counsel at the time when the petition was presented. Consequently, an irresistible conclusion can be drawn that the election petition was presented through his counsel and was not presented personally by respondent No. 3. The requirement of law stipulates that the election petition is to be presented by the candidate personally, since the same was not done the election petition was not maintainable. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Srimati Premlata (Supra) stands impliedly overruled in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in G.V. Sreerama Reddy (Supra). For the reasons stated aforesaid, this Court does not find it worthwhile to dwell on the merit with regard to deposit of Rs. 50/-. For the reasons stated aforesaid, the revisional order is quashed. The election petition stands dismissed. Writ petition is allowed.