( 47 ) SRI E. Ayyapu Reddy, has, however, placed reliance on cetain decisions in support of his contention. In Mt. Mithan v. Municipal Board, Orai, a bench of the Allahabad High Court was considering whether a Magistrate passing an order under section 247 of the u. P. Municipalities Act acts as a Court or persona designata wherein it is provided that "when a Magistrate of the first class receives information" that a house in the vicinity of a place of worship etc. is used as a brothel or for the purpose of habitual prostitution, he may summon the owner, tenant. . . . . . . . to appear before him either in person or by agent; and if satisfied that the house is used as described above may order such owner, tenant, etc. to discontinue such use. The court came to the conclusion that the magistrate acts as a persona designata because the nature of the functions to be performed by the Magistrate is more consistent with his acting as an executive authority than with his acting as a judicial authority. Therefore, the facts there are different. As a matter of fact this decision was not referred to in either of the Full Bench decisions of the allahabad High Court, Chatur Mohan v. Ram Behari, and D. P. Singh v. State of uttar Pradesh.

( 48 ) ANOTHER decision on which reliance was placed by Sri Ayyapu Reddy is a decision of the Supreme Court in Dharga committee v. State of Rajasthan. There the Supreme Court was considering whether a Magistrate acting under section 234 of the Ajmer, Merwara Municipalities Regulation does not act as an inferior criminal Court to the High Court within the meaning of section 439, Criminal procedure Code. The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate who entertains an application under section 234 is not an inferior. riminal Court on the ground that the nature of the enquiry contemplated by section 234 is very limited and it prima facie partakes of a character of a ministerial enquiry rather than a judicial enquiry.

( 49 ) ANOTHER argument submitted is that the confiscation proceedings before the collector under section 6-A of the Act are ministerial in nature and not judicial in nature and he is a designated person and that is an indication to show that the district and Sessions Judge appointed as the appellate authority against the decisions of the Collector also acts as A persona designata and not as a Court. As observed by the Supreme Court in hanskumar v. Union of India mention about which has already been made above, our statutes are full of instances where appeals or revisions to Courts are provided as against the decisions of designated persons and tribunals. Therefore from the fact that the District Collectors acting under section 6-A of the Act act as persona designata, it does not necessarily follow that the District and Sessions judge who are given the powers of appeal over the decisions of the Collectors would also act as persona designata.

( 50 ) FROM what was discussed above the following conclusions would follow : (1) Where, by statute, matters are referred to the determination of a Court with no further provision, the necessary implication is that the Court will determine the matters as a Court. Its jurisdiction is enlarged with all the incidents of such jurisdiction. (2) Where a person is indicated not by name but by official designation, the question always arises whether the intention was to single him out as a persona designata, i. e. , as an individual, the designation being merely his further description. The question whether such a person is a persona designata or not depend upon the intention to be gathered from the words used, nature of the functions to be performed and object and purpose to be achieved. (3) When a reference is made to an officer presiding over a Court and not the Court itself it does not necessarily follow that such a person is intended to act as a persona designata and not as a court because it is quite an ordinary practice for a reference to be made to the Officer pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document