The District Judge's power to transfer election petitions under Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 is subject to the mandatory requirement of recording reasons in writing and must be made to a court that has jurisdiction to hear the petition.

1. - Short and interesting question arises in this revision petition as to what is the scope of Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj. (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1994) in connection with the transfer of election petition filed before the District Judge.

2. The petitioner Smt. Manju Saini, is a duly elected Sarpanch of village Panchayat Nayan, Panchayat Samiti Shahpura, District Jaipur constituted under the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1994).

3. The non-petitioner Smt. Prabhati was a contesting candidate in the said election and after declaration of result the petitioner elected as Sarpanch by the, Returning Officer concerned. The non-petitioner instituted a civil suit under Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur District. This civil suit came to be registered in the said court as Civil Suit No. 31 of 1995 and the petitioner was summoned to appear before the said court on 15.4.1995. The petitioner submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and 151 CPC and under Rule 80, 81, 82 and 83 of the Rules of 1994 before the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur on.15.4.1995. The copy of the application was supplied to the opposite party on the same day and the case was adjourned for filing the reply of the preliminary objections for 22.4.1995.

4. On 22.4.1995, the counsel for the petitioner was informed by the reader of the court that the case has been transferred to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate Shahpura and the parties have been directed to appear in the said court on 3.5.1995.

5. The petitioner has challenged the order of transfer passed on 22.4.1995 in this revision petition.

6. I have heard Mr. RN. Agrawal, learned counsel for the, petitioner and Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned counsel for the non-petitioner and carefully peruse the impugned order.

7. Before commenting upon the said order, it is necessary to examine Ruiz 89 of the Rules of 1994, which reads as under :

"89. General power of transfer or withdrawal:- (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, or of his own motion, without such notice, the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the place or headquarters of the Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, as the case may be, is situated, may at any stage of the proceedings withdraw any petition pending in the court of any Judge Sub-ordinate to him; and

(i) try or dispose of the same, or

(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to the court of any other Judge within his jurisdiction, or

(iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the court from which it was withdrawn.

(2) Where any petition has been withdrawn or transferred under sub-rule (1) the Court which thereafter tries such petition may subject to any special directions contained in the order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was withdrawn or transferred.

8. A perusal of Rule 89 of the Rules of 1994 goes to show that the District Judge may transfer the election petition (i) on the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, (ii) of his own motion, without such notice.

9. In this case, by the impugned order the petition has been transferred in the presence of the counsel. There are two parts of the impugned order. First part of the, order bearing seal of the District Judge only. But it does not bear the signatures of the District Judge. In the second part it has been mentioned that "the counsel for the non-petitioner raised an objection and contended that the preliminary objections be decided by this court but the counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case has already been transferred, the application pertaining to preliminary objections shall be heard by t