The provisions for reference to the High Court are subject to conditions and limitations prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, and only a Court could invoke these provisions.

ORDER :

CHANDRA REDDY, J.

2. This reference is made by the District Munsif, Gudivada appointed as the Election Commission to deal with the elections held under the Madras Village Panchayats Act.

3. This is how the reference arose. An election petition was filed by One Pantala Nagaiah of Vanudurru questioning the election of one Gudavalli Veeraswami as the Vice-President of Vanudurru panchayat. A court-fee of Rs. 3/- was paid on the petition under Art. II(1)(2) Schedule II of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.

4. An objection was taken by the Office that a court-fee of Rs. 50/- should have been paid under Art. 11(v)(ii) of Schedule II on the ground that the word ‘President’ includes the Vice-President.

5. As the Election Commission felt a doubt as to the interpretation of the two provisions, he referred the matter to this Court.

6. It is unnecessary for us to consider whether it is Art. 11(1)(2) or Art. 11(1)(v)(ii) that governs this case, as we feel that the reference itself is incompetent. The only provision of law under which reference should be made to this Court is Section 113 read with Order 46, Rule 1 C.P.C.

7. Section 113, in so far as it is relevant for this enquiry, runs thus:

“Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, any Court may state a case and refer the same for the opinion of the High Court, and the High Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.

xxx”

8. It is immediately plain that the reference to be made by a Court is subject to conditions and limitations prescribed by the Code. Those conditions and limitations are set out in Order 46, Rule 1 C.P.C. which reads thus:—

“Where, before or on the hearing of a suit or an appeal in which the decree is not subject to appeal, or, where, in the execution of any such decree, any question of law or usage having the force of law arises, on which the Court trying the suit or appeal, or executing the decree, entertains reasonable doubt, the Court may either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties draw up a statement of the facts of the case and the point on which doubt is enrtetained, and refer such statement with its own opinion on the point for the decision of the High Court,”

9. It is abundantly clear both from Section 113 and Order 46. Rule 1 C.P.C. that it is only a Court that could invoke these provisions. An Election Commissioner, by no stretch of imagination, could be regarded as a Court, He is a persona designate specifically appointed under the rules framed under the Village Panchayats Act. As such, he could not fulfil the definition of ‘Court’. Therefore, it was outside the jurisdiction of an Election Commissioner to make a reference to this Court.

10. There is another limitation indicated in Order 46, Rule 1 namely, that the matter should be one not subject to appeal. That question does not arise here because the result of an Election Petition cannot be canvassed in an appeal. Be that as it may, it is not competent for the Election Commissioner to make this reference. Evidently, the Election Commissioner seems to have missed the difference between his functions as an Election Commissioner and those as a District Munsif, as it looks to us from the order of reference itself. He describes himself as a District Munsif and not as an Election Commissioner. It is regret-able that he should have confused the functions to be exercised by him as an Election Commissioner with that of a District Munsif. Even assuming that he was acting as a Court, he could have decided the point himself. If really the parties were aggrieved by his decision, they could have recourse to Section 115 C.P.C.

11. In the circumstances, we are not called upon to answer the reference.

M.S.K.

Orders accordingly.