( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad dated 6-8-1998 passed in O. P. 25 of 1996 deciding the additional issue holding that the said Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 233 of the andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 2 of A. P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla parishads) Rules, 1995 filed by the petitioner (sic. 2nd respondent) who was defeated in the election.

( 2 ) THE facts relating to the petition fall in a narrow ambit and may be stated briefly as follows: as per the averments in the petition, under A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, Zilla parishad was constituted for Adilabad district with its headquarters at Adilabad. Adilabad District was divided into territorial constituencies for election of members to the Zilla Parishad. One such zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency was constituted for Dandepalli Mandal. Elections were held on 6-3-1995 for the post of Member to the Zilla Parishad. The petitioner herein and the second respondent and two others contested for the said office. The petitioner was a candidate on behalf of the Telugu Desam Party and the second respondent contested on the ticket of congress-I Party. The third candidate represented B. J. P. and the fourth was an independent candidate. The petitioner was elected as Zilla Parishad Territorial constituency Member as he secured 9614 votes and the second respondent secured 9606 votes. The petitioner was duly declared elected as Zilla Parishad Territorial constituency Member on 12-3-1995 in view of his securing majority of 8 votes over the second respondent. Since then, the petitioner has been discharging his duties as z. P. T. C. Member.

( 3 ) IN the meanwhile, the second respondent filed Election Petition challenging the election in the District Court of Adilabad and the said petition was numbered as O. P. No. 108 of 1995. The petitioner s election was questioned on the ground that invalid votes polled were counted as valid votes in his favour and valid votes polled in favour of the 2nd respondent were also counted in favour of the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE petitioner herein as respondent in the said O. P. filed his counter taking among others the plea that the District Court at adilabad had no jurisdiction to entertain the election petition and the petition cannot be adjudicated. It was also pleaded that the district Court had no power to transfer the election Petition to the Sub-Court, Adilabad which was constituted for the first time on 27-1-1996 at Adilabad. There was no Sub- court prior to that at Adilabad. The other allegations made in the Election Petition were duly denied by the petitioner herein and it was pleaded that no irregularities were committed in counting of the votes. It may be mentioned that at the relevant time when the impugned order deciding the additional issue was passed, the Election petition stood transferred to the newly established Sub-Court at Adilabad by the district Court.

( 5 ) THE petitioner requested the Senior civil Judge (Election Tribunal) to decide the additional issue"whether this Court has got the jurisdiction to try the petition".

( 6 ) TWO contentions were raised before the Senior Civil Judge Firstly, that the Sub- court, Adilabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition; Secondly that the district Court has no jurisdiction to receive the Election Petition and transfer the same to the Court of Senior Civil Judge (Election tribunal) which was constituted only on 27-1-1996 whereas the Election Petition was filed in 1995 before the District Court, adilabad. (It is also contended in this petition that the petition must be held to have been barred by limitation though this plea does not appear to have been raised before the Senior Civil Judge as seen from the impugned order ). Th