The main legal point established in the judgment is the High Court's superintendence over all Courts and tribunals, the judicial functions of the Election Commissioner, and the applicability of O. IX R.13 and R. 75(2) of the Travancore Cochin Panchayat Rules, 1951.

1. This is a petition under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Art. 227 of the Constitution praying for the reversal of an order of the Election Commissioner, Vaikom, in Panchayat Election Petition No. 5 of 1953. The order impugned is the order of 17.3.1954 by which he refused to consider the petitioner's application for relief under O. IX R.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the provisions of that rule are unavailable to the trial of Election Petitions under the Travancore Cochin Panchayat Rules, 1951.

2. The petitioner is the returned candidate and the 1st respondent, the successful petitioner in Election Petition No. 5 of 1953, who has been able to secure a declaration to the effect that the Election of the returned candidate was void and that he himself has been duly elected. The order in favour of the 1st respondent was passed ex-parte on 15.2.1954 and the petitioner by his petition dated 9.3.1954 invoked, as stated above, the provisions of O. IX R.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. In 30 Cochin 671 a Full Bench of the Cochin High Court has held that an Election Commissioner exercising his functions as a persona designata is not a "court subordinate" to the High Court and that the High Court has not revisional jurisdiction in respect of the orders passed by him. That the Election Commissioner appointed under the Travancore-Cochin Panchayat Rules, 1951 functions as a persona designata and not in his capacity as a District Munsiff is clear from sub-r. (3) of R. 72 which provides :

"An Election Commissioner exercising jurisdiction under these rules shall be deemed to exercise such jurisdiction as a persona designata and not in his capacity as District Munsiff of the Court over which he presides".

4. This aspect of the case, however, is of no material importance in view of Art. 227 of the Constitution, Art. 227 reads as follows:

"Every High Court shall have superintendence over all Courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction."

There can be no doubt that the Election Commissioner is a tribunal with all the trappings of a Court and that he exercises judicial as distinct from administrative or inquisitorial functions in the discharge of his duties. There cannot also be any doubt that the word "superintendence" as pointed out by Rankin, C.J. in Mammatha v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Cal. 132, is a term of legal force and signification involving the responsibility to keep the courts and tribunals concerned within the bounds of their authority, to see that they do their duty, and that they do it in a legal manner. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215 wherein it has been held that the power of superintendence covers both administrative and judicial matters and that it should be invoked in all cases of non-exercise or illegal exercise of a jurisdiction vested by law in any Court or Tribunal.

5. The only further question that remains to be considered is whether the provisions of O. IX R.13 are available to the petitioner as contended by him, S. 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides:

"The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction".

It is, however, unnecessary to consider the scope and ambit of this section in view of R. 75(2) of the Travancore Cochin Panchayat Rules, 1951, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

"Subject to the provisions of the Act and of any rule made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the Election Commissioner, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908) to the trial of suits".

6. The Election Commissioner seems to have considered sub-r. (2) of R.75 as practically of no effect because of sub-r. (5) of that rule:

"The Election C