1. On 25/11/2016, the case was listed for admission. On that day, counsel for the respondent objected to the maintainability of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, before proceeding further in the matter, arguments of learned counsel for both the parties were heard on maintainability of this petition.

2. Before dealing with the question of maintainability of the petition, we think it proper to narrate the facts of the case in brief. The general election of Gram Panchayat Masari, Panchayat Samiti Kathumar was held on 18/01/2015. The petitioner contested the election of Sarpanch against Nihaldei-respondent No. 1 and others. The petitioner was declared elected having scored a larger number of votes as against her opponent. Respondent No. 1, thereafter filed an Election Petition under Rule 80 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 which will hereinafter be referred as the “Rules of 1994”, before the Tribunal viz., District Judge, Alwar which was later on transferred to Senior Civil Judge, Laxmangarh, District Alwar under Section 43 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which will hereinafter be referred as the “Act of 1994”. The petitioner herein filed reply to the Election Petition. Thereafter, issues were framed. Parties to the Election Petition concluded their evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Senior Civil Judge, Laxmangarh allowed the Election Petition and declared the petitioner's election to be void vide impugned judgment. It is against this judgment dated 28.09.2016, the present petition is preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Senior Civil Judge, Laxmangarh hearing the Election Petition under Rule 80 is a “persona designata” and his action in dealing with Election Petition cannot be examined by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel also submits that only the remedy lies against the impugned judgment is writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on :-

1.1964 RLW 1 Keshav Devi Vs. Radhey Shyam (DB),

2.1998 (1) WLC (Raj.) 81 Smt. Indira Vs. Smt. Prabha

3.2002 (4) WLN 47 Santosh Kanwar Vs. Surgyan Kanwar & Ors.

4. Learned counsel also placed reliance on Article 243-O of the Constitution and on Section 117, 117A of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent and submitted that Senior Civil Judge hearing Election Petition under Section 43 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994, is not “persona designata” but acts in the capacity of Court, therefore, this Court can exercise it's superintending powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on :-

1. 1997 (1) RLR 583 Narayan Dutt Vs. Ibrahim,

2. 2008 (6) WLC 174 Sheojilal Vs. District Judge, Bundi & Ors.

3. (1995) 5 SCC 5 Mukri Gopalan Vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil.

6. It will be useful to refer relevant statutory provisions. Article 227 and 243-O of the Constitution of India reads as follows :-

227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.- [(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.]

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may-

(a) call for returns from such courts;

(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and

(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.

(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:

7. Provided that a