Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : KUMARAYYA, SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Mangu Venkatarah - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 11-22-61
GRAM PANCHAYATS ACT - SECTION 19 - MUNSIF-MAGISTRATE - JURISDICTION - REVISION - WHETHER MUNSIF-MAGISTRATE ACTING AS PERSONA DESIGNATA OR AS A COURT - FINALITY OF DECISION - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, SECTION 115.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an ex parte injunction order passed by the Munsif-Magistrate under section 19 of the Gram Panchayats Act, 1956. The Munsif-Magistrate had initially made the order absolute until further orders but later reviewed and set it aside as being beyond his competence. The petitioner filed a revision petition under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, challenging the Munsif-Magistrate's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Munsif-Magistrate, while exercising powers under section 19 of the Gram Panchayats Act, was acting as a Court and not as a persona designata. Therefore, the Munsif-Magistrate was subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the revision petition was maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the Munsif-Magistrate, while exercising powers under section 19 of the Gram Panchayats Act, was acting as a persona designata or as a Court. 2. Whether the Munsif-Magistrate's decision under section 19 was final and not subject to revision by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted section 19 of the Gram Panchayats Act and found that it did not explicitly refer to the Court but to the Munsif-Magistrate. However, the court held that this did not make a difference because, where a Court consists of a single judicial officer, a reference to that officer under their particular title can still be a reference to the Court. 2. The court distinguished section 19 from section 24 of the Gram Panchayats Act, which deals with election disputes. The court noted that section 24 specifically states that the Munsif-Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under that section shall be deemed to exercise it as persona designata. However, section 19 does not contain such a provision. 3. The court also considered the fact that the Munsif-Magistrate, while exercising powers under section 19, is required to follow the procedure in the Code of Civil Procedure. This, according to the court, indicated that the Munsif-Magistrate was acting as a Court.
Final Decision: The court held that the Munsif-Magistrate, while exercising powers under section 19 of the Gram Panchayats Act, was acting as a Court and not as a persona designata. Therefore, the Munsif-Magistrate was subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the revision petition was maintainable.
( 1 ) THE Munsif-Magistrate, Jangaon, in purported exercise of his powers under section 19 of the Gram Panchayats Act, 1956 (Act XVII of 1956), passed an ex parte injunction order which he made absolute until further orders. But on the application of the aggrieved party he reviewed his order and set it aside as being beyond his competence. It is against this order that the petitioner has come up in Revision invoking the powers of this Court under section 115, Civil procedure Code.
( 2 ) THE Office has taken objection as to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that the Munsif-Magistrate in deciding the dispute under section 19 of the Hyderabad Gram Panchayats Act is not a Court subordinate to the High court within the meaning of section 115, Civil Procedure Code, and has placed the matter for decision before this Bench.
( 3 ) THE point for consideration is whether the reference to Munsif-Magistrate in section 19 of Act XVII of 1956 is made as a persona designata or as a Court. If the Munsif-Magistrate while exercising the powers under section 19 of the Act was intended to act as a designated person and not as a Court, it should necessarily follow that for the orders made by him he will be amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court only under Article 227 of the Constitution and not under section 115, civil Procedure Code, The expression persona designata connotes a personl appointed by name or other personal description in contradistinction to one whose identity is to be ascertained by the office he holds. So, then, where a person is indicated in the statute not by name but by an 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 or it was that he would cease to be the person so indicated on losing his official designation. If he be a judicial officer as in this case and is intended by the statute to act not otherwise than in a judicial capacity or a Court, certainly he cannot come within the expression persona designata so that he may, irrespective of his continuance in office, perform the duty. Whether the intention is one or the other has to be gathered from the words used, the nature of the functions to be performed and the objects and purport of the statute.
( 4 ) SO then, we first advert to the statutory provisions material for the present purpose. Sections 19 and 24 are the two sections wherein authority to decide matters has been conferred on the Munsif-Magistrate. Sections 19 and 24 read thus :"19. Any question as to whether a Panch by becoming subject to any of the disqualifications under sub-section (1) of section 18 has ceased to be a Panch shall be decided by the minsif-Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the village is situated. The decision of such Munsif-Magistrate shall be final. ""24 (1) No election held under this Act shall be called in question except through an election petition which shall contain such matters, claim such relief and be presented in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) An election petition calling in question any election under this Act, may be presented to the Munsif-Magistrate by any candidate at such election, or any voter in such form and within such time but not earlier than the date of publication of results of the election under section 23 as may be prescribed. (3) The Munsif-Magistrate shall deal with such petitions and proceedings in connection therewith, in the prescribed manner. The decision of the Munsif-Magistrate on such election petitions shall be final and conclusive and shall not be questioned in any Court of law. "the field covered by either sections is distinct and separate. Section 24 relates to election disputes, the manner in which and the authority before whom they should be presented and also the way in which they should be disposed of. Section 19, on the other hand, deals only with the dec
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.