Mr. P.K. Lohra, J.

These three writ petitions involve common question of law, therefore, all are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Petitioners in all these three writ petitions are elected Ward Members of Municipal Board/Council, Nokha. Respondents - election petitioners feeling aggrieved by their election as Ward Members laid three separate election petitions to question their election under Section 31 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short 'the Act of 2009) on different grounds before the District Judge, Bikaner (for short 'the learned Election Tribunal'). The learned Election Tribunal while exercising power Section 10 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950 (for short 'the Ordinance of 1950) transferred all the three election petitions to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2 Bikaner. This sort of situation promoted all the three petitioners to question the jurisdiction of Additional District Judge No. 2 Bikaner as Election Tribunal and on their behalf, applications under Order 7, Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC were submitted for returning the election petitions for their presentation before the District Judge, Bikaner.

3. The applications submitted by the petitioners were replied by the respondent-returned candidates by resisting the prayer but in the alternative it was also pleaded that they do not have any objection for hearing of the election petitions by either of the Court/Election Tribunal i.e. by Additional District Judge No. 2 or District Judge, Bikaner.

4. After hearing the rival submissions, learned Additional District Judge No. 2 by the order impugned in all the writ petitions of the even date i.e. 18.01.2016 rejected the applications of the petitioners. The learned Additional District Judge No.2 in the order impugned observed that under the Act of 2009, there is no legal embargo for this Court to hear and decide the election petitions and as such it is not desirable to return the election petitions for their presentation before the District Judge, Bikaner.

5. The crucial question which has cropped up in all these writ petitions is : Whether a District Judge while acting as Election Tribunal under Section 31 of the Act of 2009 can transfer an election petition to the Court of Additional District Judge by treating it an Election Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that under Chapter-IXA of the Constitution which was inserted by Constitution (Seventy Forth Amendment) Act, 1992, an affirmative attempt was made to strengthen the system of municipal bodies in the urban areas. Learned counsel would contend that idea is to place local-self Government in urban areas on a sound and effective footing. Placing reliance on Article 243ZG of the Constitution, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that bar to interference by courts in electoral matters pre-supposes that election matters are to be sorted out by a local forum envisaged under the statute and not by any civil court. In substance, learned counsel for the petitioners have urged that only District Judge within whose territorial jurisdiction municipal area is situated can adjudicate an election dispute and jurisdiction of any other court including its subordinate court is forbidden. Laying emphasis on Section 31 of the Act of 2009, learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that legislature in its wisdom has conferred jurisdiction on the District Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the municipal area requires strict construction as per Section 3(7) of the General Clauses Act so as not to include Additional District Judge subordinate to it. Harping on the recital "question" under Section 31 of the Act of 2009, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that term "question" means that election petition is to be adjudicated by the District Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the concerned municipal area only. Learned counsel for the petitioners have conten