Rajan Roy, J. - (1.) Heard.
(2.) An interesting issue regarding the manner of presentation of an election petitions under Section 12-C(1) and (3) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 1947') has been referred by a Single Judge Bench for our consideration. The Single Judge Bench has referred the matter to us as it noticed conflicting opinions of various Benches of this Court on the issue involved and also as it is an issue which arises quite often before the Courts in proceedings arising from of an election petition under the Act, 194;7, hence the need to settle it conclusively. The question referred to us vide order dated 13.8.2019 of the writ court, as rephrased by us vide our order dated 22.11.2019, are quoted below :- "1.) Whether presentation of an election petition by the election petitioner personally is a mandatory requirement in view of Sub-section 3 of Section 12 C(1) of the Act, 1947 and Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1994 and whether it's non-compliance is fatal or it would merely be an improper presentation, a curable defect? 2. Whether the decision of the Single Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Viresh Kumar Tiwari (supra) lays down the law correctly with regard to the question framed at serial no. 1 or it is the division Bench judgment in the case Lal Bahadur Singh (supra) and the subsequent Single Bench judgment in the case of Urmila (supra) which lay down the law correctly ?"
(3.) As we are not required to decide any factual issue involved in the Writ Petition and especially as the questions referred to us are not dependent on any peculiar facts of the case but are of a general nature, we do not find it necessary to mention the facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition in question. Suffice it to say that according to the petitioner the election petition in question had not been presented by the candidate, it was presented by his Advocate, as is recorded in the ordersheet by the Prescribed Authority, therefore, the mandate of section 12-C(3) of the Act 1947 had not been complied which was mandatory, hence the petition was liable to be dismissed, but neither the Prescribed Authority nor the revisional authority have appreciated this aspect of the matter appropriately and in accordance with law.;