JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. J. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party/election petitioner. 2. By this order, I propose to dispose of the application filed under Section 86(1) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, by means of which, the applicant, who is the respondent no. 8 in the connected Election petition, has assailed the maintainability of the election petition on the grounds mentioned therein. 3. From a perusal of the averments made in the application, it is apparent that the following contentions have been advanced by the applicant in support of his plea regarding maintainability of the election petition :- (a) The election petition is barred under the Law of Limitation since the same has been presented before the Stamp Reporter beyond the period of 45 days from the declaration of the results. (b) The election petition was not personally presented by the petitioner as per the mandate of Section 81 of the Act of 1951 and (c) The opposite party/election petitioner has failed to make attestation in the accompanying copies of the election petition marking them as “true copies”. 4. By referring to the materials available on record, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the election to the No. 35 Abhayapuri South (SC) Legislative Assembly Constituency was held on 11/04/2016 and the results were declared on 19/05/2016. Reckoned from 19/05/2016, the time for presenting the election petition was available under the law till 03/07/2016 i.e. for a period of 45 days. However, in the present case, the election petition was presented before the Stamp Reporter of this Court only on 16/07/2016 which was beyond the period of 45 days. It is also the submission of Mr. Deka that the election petition was neither presented personally by the petitioner nor were the copies attested as true copies. Since, the petition had been presented in contravention of the mandatory provision of section 81 of the Act of 1951, the same is not maintainable in the eye of law and is therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine. 5. Referring to the provisions contained in Chapter VIII-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules, 2015, Mr. Since, the petition had been presented in contravention of the mandatory provision of section 81 of the Act of 1951, the same is not maintainable in the eye of law and is therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine. 5. Referring to the provisions contained in Chapter VIII-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules, 2015, Mr. Deka submits that an election petition filed under Section 80-A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 must be presented before the Stamp Reporter of this Court with a Court Fee of Rs. 6/- affixed thereon, within 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate. In the present case, although the election petition was shown to have been filed on 24/06/2016, yet, in reality, submits Mr. Deka, it was presented before the Stamp Reporter only on 16/07/2016. 6. By referring to the endorsement made in the case record as well as the statements made in the application, Mr. Deka submits that the categorical statements made in the application to the effect that the election petition was not personally presented by the election petitioner has remained un-rebutted. Therefore, it is established on the face of the record that the election petitioner had not personally presented the election petition as per prescription of law. Since Section 81 of the Act of 1951 requires the candidate to personally present the election petition, an omission to do so, according to Mr. Deka, would have fatal consequences and would constitute a ground for dismissal of the election petition on such count alone. In support of his aforesaid arguments, Mr. Deka has placed reliance on the following decisions :- 1. Abdul Jabbar Vs. Syeda Anwara Taimur and others reported in (1986) 1 GLR 257 . 2. Pabindra Deka Vs. Monoranjan Das reported in 2005(2) GLT 133. 3. Jamal Uddin Ahmed Vs. Abu Saleh Najimuddin and others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 257 . 4. G.V. Sreerama Reddy and another Vs. Returning Officer and others reported in (2009) 8 SCC 736 . 7. Resisting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mahmud contends that the election petition was personally presented by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Affidavit of this High Court, who is also the Stamp Reporter, on 26/04/2016. 4. G.V. Sreerama Reddy and another Vs. Returning Officer and others reported in (2009) 8 SCC 736 . 7. Resisting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mahmud contends that the election petition was personally presented by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Affidavit of this High Court, who is also the Stamp Reporter, on 26/04/2016. The learned counsel submits that the Commissioner of Affidavit and Stamp Reporter being the same person, the ground taken in the application are without any substance and hence, deserves to be rejected by this court. By drawing the attention of this court to the note put up by the Stamp Reporter on 16/07/2016 Mr. Mahmud submits that the Gauhati High Court was closed during the period from 25/06/2016 till 10/07/2016 due to summer vacation and that may be the reason why the report of the Stamp Reporter is dated 16/07/2016 although the election petition was filed on 24/06/2016. The learned counsel has denied the allegation that the copies furnished with the election petition were not properly attested by the election petitioner. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the materials available on record. Rule 1 of Chapter VIII of the Gauhati High Court Rules provided as follows :- “1. An election petition under S.80-A of Representation of Peoples Act may be presented duly verified in the form prescribed under Ss. 82 and 83 of the said Act before the stamp reporter of this Court with a Court fee of Rs. 6.00 affixed thereon, within 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of their election are different, the latter of those two dates. 6.00 affixed thereon, within 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of their election are different, the latter of those two dates. Every such petition shall be accompanied by – (a) as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition together with one extra copy, all the copies being fully attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition and as many envelopes as there are respondents hearing requisite postage stamp to enable service to be effected by registered post with acknowledgement due ; (b) as many printed forms of notices, duly filled in, as there are respondents; (c) an affidavit in support of the contents of the petition as prescribed in R. 83(c) of the aforesaid Act where necessary; (d) a challan showing the deposit of Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand) into the State Bank of India, Gauhati Branch in favour of the Registrar of the Court, as security for the costs of the petition; Provided that such deposit in respect of petition to be filed in the Benches at Kohima, Imphal and Agartala may be made in the State Bank of Kohima, Imphal and Agartala, as the case may be, in favour of the Deputy Registrar of the Bench concerned.” 9. A plain reading of the said provision leaves no manner of doubt that for the purpose of presenting an election petition, the Stamp Reporter is the designated officer appointed by the High Court and therefore, the election petition has to be presented before the Stamp Reporter within the prescribed period of limitation. 10. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the affidavit in support of the election petition was sworn by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Affidavit on 22/06/2016 and the same was filed before the filing section on 24/06/2016. From the record, I find that the Stamp Reporter and Commissioner of Affidavit had put up a note on 16/07/2016 to the effect that the election petition was filed by the election petitioner on 24/06/2016. The note dated 16/07/2016 will be relevant for the purpose of this case and, therefore, is extracted here-in below for ready referrence:- “Report of the Election Petition 1. The note dated 16/07/2016 will be relevant for the purpose of this case and, therefore, is extracted here-in below for ready referrence:- “Report of the Election Petition 1. The Election Petition has been filed by the petitioner today i.e. 24/06/2016 personally during the office hours. The petitioner is present and signed each of the pages of the petition, annexures and series copies of the petition in my presence. 2. The petition along with a spare copy for the office use within 45 days and in form. The petition has been supported by an affidavit. 3. Two numbers of written envelops duly stamped for Rs. 260/- each with Regd. A/D have been filed. 4. Nine numbers of written up notices have been submitted for service of notice upon the respondents. 5. Security amount of Rs. 2000/- has been deposited in the Treasury Office, Kamrup (Metro), vide Challan No. 6/8706 dtd. 23.06.2016. 6. The petition contains 47 pages. 7. The petition is supported by a Vakalatnama accepted by 6 Nos. of Counsels. Sd/- Illegible (16/6/16) Stamp Reporter and Commissioner of Affidavit Gauhati High Court Guwahati.” 11. A bare reading of the report dated 16/07/2016 goes to show that the Stamp Reporter of this Court has himself certified that the Election Petition has been filed on 24/06/2016 i.e. within 45 days and the same was presented personally by the election petitioner in proper form. The said report of the Stamp Reporter has not been assailed by the applicant. 12. It has been brought to the notice of this court that the principal seat of the Gauhati High Court was closed due to the summer holidays with effect from 25/06/2016 and the court had re-opened only on 11/07/2017.Therefore, it is possible that due to the intervening summer vacation, there was some delay on the part of the Stamp Reporter to put up the report which could be eventually done only on 16/07/2016. But the fact that the election petition was presented by the petitioner on 24/06/2016 i.e. within the prescribed period of limitation stands established from the report of the Stamp Reporter. The report dated 16/07/2016 is also quiet clear and un-equivocal about the fact that the election petition was filed by the election petitioner him-self. But the fact that the election petition was presented by the petitioner on 24/06/2016 i.e. within the prescribed period of limitation stands established from the report of the Stamp Reporter. The report dated 16/07/2016 is also quiet clear and un-equivocal about the fact that the election petition was filed by the election petitioner him-self. As such, merely because there is some delay on the part of the Stamp Reporter in putting up the note, it cannot be said that the election petition itself was filed beyond the prescribe period of limitation. 13. Coming to the next objection raised by the applicant regarding absence of attestation in the copies certifying the same as “true Copy” I find from the record that on 02/11/2016, the applicant/ respondent No 8 had filed his written statement contesting the Election Petition on merit. Although plea of maintainability had been raised there-in yet, it is evident that the applicant has contested the election petition by filing his written statement accepting the copy of the election petition served upon him to be the true copy. 14. As would be evident from the note of the Stamp Reporter dated 16/07/2016, the election petitioner has signed each page of the election petition and the accompanying copies and the applicant has also not disputed the same. In fact it has been admitted in paragraph 7 of the application that the copy served upon him bears the signature of the election petitioner. 15. Section 81(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 mandates that 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. Going by the plain language of section 81(3), there can be hardly any doubt about the fact that each copy of the election petition for service upon the respondents should be attested by the own signature of the election petitioner but the said provision does not lay down any specific requirement of writing down the word “attested” or “true Copy” in the service copy. Record reveals that not only were the service copies signed by the election petitioner but the copies of the election petition had also been verified by the Stamp Reporter where after, those were certified to be the true copies of the election petition. The applicant has also not denied that the copy served upon him was a true copy of the election petition. If that be so, there has been substantive compliance of the provision of section 81(3) of the Act of 1951 in this case. 16. It is no doubt true that after the decision of this court in the case of Abdul Jabbar (Supra), law is well settled that an election petition has to be personally presented by the petitioner before the Stamp Reporter of the High Court within 45 days from the date of declaration of the results failing which, the same shall be held to be barred by limitation. But as has been held above, in the present case, the election petition had been presented by the petitioner before the Stamp Reporter within time. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by Mr Deka would be of no assistance to him in the facts of the case. 17. For the reasons stated here-in above I am of the opinion that the controversy raised in this application is devoid of any merit and therefore, stands rejected. 18. The election petition is held to be maintainable and be now listed for further orders. The IA stands disposed of.