1. Heard Shri A.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, on the question of admission and interim relief.

2. By this writ appeal, filed under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the appellant has assailed the legal validity of the order dated 20-1-2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 9747/2010.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, are that the appellant and the respondent/petitioner contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bharatpur, Tehsil Rithi, District Katni. The elections were held on 18-2-2010 and the present appellant was declared the returned candidate. The respondent/petitioner, being aggrieved, had filed the election petition against the election of the appellant under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat Rules') on 18-2-2010. Notices were issued to the appellant who ultimately entered appearance on 23-3-2010. The appellant, thereafter, filed an objection to the maintainability of the election petition before the prescribed authority on 19-4-2010 alleging non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Rule 3 of the Panchayat Rules on the ground that the copy served upon the appellant was not signed and attested by the election petitioner.

4. The Election Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 31-5-2010 allowed the objection filed by the election petitioner and dismissed the election petition filed by the respondent/petitioner. Being aggrieved by which the respondent/petitioner had filed W. P. No. 9747/2010 which has been allowed by the impugned order by recording a finding to the effect that the election petitioner had in fact filed the election petition in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 3 of the Panchayat Rules but the appellant, on his request, had been granted an additional copy of the petition during the proceedings of the election petition on 23-3-2010 which copy was not signed and attested and, therefore, as there was no requirement for signing and attesting the additional copy which has been handed over in Court and as the appellant had not produced any evidence to the effect that the copy served upon him, through notice, was not signed and attested therefore the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal was not in accordance with the provision of law.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that a perusal of the order sheets of the Election Tribunal dated 18-2-2010 and 23-3-2010 clearly indicates that the election petition filed by the respondent/petitioner was not in conformity or in accordance with the provisions of the mandatory provisions of Rule 3 of the Panchayat Rules.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20-1-2011. From a perusal of the record it is clear that the respondent/petitioner had filed the election petition on 18-2-2010 and the Tribunal accepted the same stating clearly and specifically in the order sheet that the election petition was filed along with the requisite fees of Rs. 500/-. The election petition was registered and thereafter notices of the election petition were issued on the same day. Subsequent order sheet dated 26-2-2010 indicates that notice was initially not served upon the appellant and was thereafter again directed to be issued on 15-3-2010. The order sheet further indicates that the appellant had entered appearance on 23-3-2010 and on that date an additional copy of the election petition was given to him.

7. It is, therefore, apparent from the order sheets that the election petition filed by the respondent/petitioner on 18-2-2010 was accepted by the authority in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Panchayat Rules and thereafter notice on the said election petition was issued to the appellant. It is also clear and has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that on subsequent issuance of notice on 15-3-2010 it was served upon the appellant and accordingly he entered appearance on 23-3-2010. However, it has nowhere been stated by the appellant that the copy served upon the appellant along with the notice was not signed or attested or that a copy of the petition was not attached to the notice while a perusal of the order sheet dated 23-3-2010 indicates that the appellant appeared and was given an additional copy. The appellant did not take any objection either on 23-3-2010, 6-4-2010 or on 13-4-2010 to the effect that the notice served on him was without copies of the election petition or that the copy served along with the notice was unattested and it is only for the first time that the appellant filed an objection on 19-4-2010 to the effect that the copy supplied to him on his request did not contain attestation and signature.

8. The learned Single Judge, after taking careful note of the aforesaid order sheets has recorded a finding that there is nothing on record to establish that a signed and attested copy of the election petition was not sent to the appellant along with the notice. The learned Single Judge has also stated, and in our considered opinion rightly so, that in case an unsigned and unattested copies of the election petition was served upon the appellant along with the notice it should have been filed by the appellant before the authority to establish this fact and as the best evidence which was available to the appellant was not produced by him an adverse inference has rightly been drawn against him. The learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding to the effect that

the additional copy, i.e. an extra copy which was given to the counsel for the appellant during the proceedings on 23-2-2010 need not be signed and attested by the election petitioner as that is not the requirement of Rule 3 of the Panchayat Rules which only provides signing and attestation of copies filed along with the election petition. We find no legal infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge or the proposition of law laid down therein warranting interference in this appeal. 9. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.