YADAV, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed, questioning the legality and validity of the order passed by Panchayat Election Tribunal, Annex. 2 to the writ petition, on 29. 9. 2000, holding that defect in verification of a panchayat election petition, is curable and not fatal. In support of the aforesaid conclusion, the Election Tribunal has placed reliance on a decision, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in case of Sumer Singh vs. THE Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khetri and another (1 ). It is held in case of Sumer Singh (supra) that defect in verification either in the election petition or in the schedule or annexures attached thereto, may be allowed to be removed in the same manner, as such defects could be removed in the case of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) AN identical question came up for consideration before Supreme Court, in case of H. D. Revanna vs. G. Puttaswamy Gowda and others After surveying all the decisions on the subject of verification of election petition and the supporting affidavit, in paragraph-14, Hon'ble Srinivasan, J. , the then Judge of Supreme Court speaking for the Court, rules that defect in verification of the election petition or the affidavit, accompanying the election petition, are held to be curable, and not fatal. It is further held that if the Court comes to the conclusion that there is non-compliance of Order 6, Rule 16, or Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, then, of course, the election petition could be dismissed. Here, in the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out that the election petition, filed before the Election Tribunal, suffered from non-compliance either of Order 6, Rule 16 or Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. When the learned counsel for the petitioner, was confronted with the aforesaid situation, he placed reliance on a decision, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, in case of Kripal Singh vs. Darshan Singh and others (3), wherein the question posed, was whether rigour of law with regard to pleadings should be relaxed in case of panchayat elections, on the ground that said pleadings are drafted by lawyers in mufussil areas. Answering the aforesaid question, the learned Judges, constituting the Division Bench, arrived at a conclusion that in panchayat election, the principles applicable for elections to Lok Sabha and State Legislature, have been made applicable, therefore, the petitioner, challenging the election to panchayat, must satisfy the test laid down by Supreme Court and High Court, with regard to inspection of ballot-papers and recount of votes. In my considered opinion, the facts and circumstances of the decision, rendered in case of Kripal Singh (supra), are not analogous to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The decision rendered by Supreme Court in case of H. D. Revanna (supra), has binding effect, within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, and an argument, contrary to it, is not acceptable. The Election Tribunal, the respondent No. 1, within the meaning of Article 144 of the Constitution of India, had no option except to act in aid of the pronouncement made by Supreme Court, in case of H. D. Revanna (supra ). In my considered opinion, the judgment given by Election Tribunal, the respondent No. 1, is eminently just and proper and does not require interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed in limine, at admission stage. .;