ORDER : S.K. Seth, J. 1. Both petitions have been filed by the returned candidates who won the election held in the year 2015 for the Zila Panchayat Singrauli, therefore this order shall also govern disposal of connected writ petition No. 14094 of 2015 as the issues raised in both the petitions are common arising of same factual background. For the sake of convenience, facts are noticed from W.P. No. 13747 of 2015. 2. Respondent No. 1 Smt. Rani Agarwal and the petitioner Ajay Kumar Pathak contested election for the post of President, Zila Panchayat Singrauli. Smt. Rani Agarwal lost in the election to the petitioner, therefore she filed an election petition to challenge the election of petitioner as President, Zila-Panchayat, Singrauli before the Additional Commissioner, Singrauli. 3. Petitioner herein raised various objections to the presentation and the sustainability of an election petition. Respondent contested the objections. 4. By the order impugned, Additional Commissioner overruled the objections and held that the election petition was validly presented and further held that there was no merit in the objections. 5. Shri Shukla appearing for petitioners submitted that the authority to whom election petition is to be presented in the prescribed mode and manner is mandatory, violation thereof renders the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner unsustainable in law and liable be to set aside. In support of his contention he relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Smt. Suman Patel v. Smt. Bhanwati & Others 1998(II) MPJR 368 , (ii) Tara v. Dabla Alias Lalita and others 2002(3) M.P.L.J. 591 , (iii) Geeta Devi Yadav v. Archana and another 2008(1) M.P.L.J. 261 , (iv) Urmila Devi v. Returning Officer (Panchayat) and others 2008(4) M.P.H.T. 410 and (v) Ramanlal Surajbhan Premy v. Shivpratap Singh and another 1978 M.P.L.J. 399. 6. Shri Agarwal appearing for respondent while supporting the order impugned submitted that the provisions are not obligatory, therefore, sufficient compliance thereof is more than enough to sustain the order impugned and petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. He has placed reliance on AIR 1958 SC 687 K. Kamraj v. Kunju Thaver; 1969(1) SCC 408 Shivsadan Singh v. Manoharlal; AIR 1993 Allahabad 104 Nawab Khan v. Vishwanath Shashtri. 7. He has placed reliance on AIR 1958 SC 687 K. Kamraj v. Kunju Thaver; 1969(1) SCC 408 Shivsadan Singh v. Manoharlal; AIR 1993 Allahabad 104 Nawab Khan v. Vishwanath Shashtri. 7. In order to resolve the controversy, it would not be out of place to notice relevant provision of Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, which reads under: "Section 122. Election Petition. (1) An election under this Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner:- (i) in case of [Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha] to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue); (ii) in case of Janpad Panchayat to the Collector; and (iii) in case of Zila Panchayat to the Divisional Commissioner and not otherwise. (2) No such petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the election in question was notified. (3) Such petition shall be enquired into or disposed of within six months according to such procedure as may be prescribed." 8. The relevant rule is Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, which reads as under :- "Rule 3. Presentation of election petition.- (1) 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. (2) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition." 9. There is no universal rule except this that language alone most often is not decisive to determine the question whether provision is mandatory or directory. The regard must be had to the context subject matter and object and the statutory provision in question. In the oft-quoted passage LORD CAMPBEL said: "No universal rule can be laid down as to whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience". This has been approved by the Supreme Court in H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 (page 200). It is clear that the provision is mandatory an act done in breach thereof will be invalid. This has been approved by the Supreme Court in H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 (page 200). It is clear that the provision is mandatory an act done in breach thereof will be invalid. In other words, the mandatory enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly. If a statute provides an act to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in that manner and not otherwise. In the case in hand, Section 122 clearly provides that an election petition in case of a Zila Panchayat can be challenged only before the Divisional Commissioner. According to Rule 3, election petition shall be presented to the specified officer (Divisional Commissioner) 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. From the documents on record, it is clear that the election petition was not presented to the specified officer, i.e. Divisional Commissioner but in the office of Additional Commissioner. It was not presented by the respondent in person but by an Advocate who was not especially authorised in this behalf by the respondent. She had executed a general Vakalatnama in favour of the Advocate which has been held to be insufficient compliance of sub-rule 1 of Rule 3 of 1995 Rules. Thus, I find that election petition was not presented in the prescribed manner to the Divisional Commissioner by an unauthorized person, this was clearly in breach of statutory provisions mentioned above. The order impugned passed by the Additional Commissioner is, therefore, unsustainable in law and as such, liable to be set aside. The reliance placed by Shri Agrawal on the decisions mentioned above are of no avail because in the first case ( AIR 1958 SC 687 ) in the context of the facts of the case, it was held that there was sufficient compliance of Section 117 of the Representation of Peoples' Act, 1951 when security was furnished in other form, instead of in favour of the Secretary to the Election Commission. In 1969(1) SCC 408 , it was held by their Lordships that presentation of election petition by advocate's clerk in immediate presence of petitioner, the requirement of law is satisfied. In 1969(1) SCC 408 , it was held by their Lordships that presentation of election petition by advocate's clerk in immediate presence of petitioner, the requirement of law is satisfied. In AIR 1993 Allahabad, the election petition was presented to the Registrar of High Court as per the Allahabad High Court Rules was held to be sufficient compliance of Section 81 of the Representation of the Peoples' Act, 1951. As has been pointed out herein above, in the instant case, the election petition was not presented to the specified officer, i.e. Divisional Commissioner (violation of Section 122 of Adhiniyam 1993)and secondly it was filed neither by the respondent nor by the person authorised in writing by the respondent in that behalf. This Court has consistently taken a view that general Vakalatnama is not sufficient compliance of sub-rule 1 of Rule 3 of the 1995 Rules. Thus,we find that the Additional Commissioner had no authority to entertain the election petition and committed grave illegality in overruling the objections filed by petitioner against the election petition. Thus, the order impugned cannot sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 5000/- against respondent no.1. 11. Ordered accordingly. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P. No. 14094/2015. Petition allowed.