VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order passed by the District Judge, Chittorgarh whereby, it has transferred the election petition filed under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act of 1994’) read with Section 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the Rules of 1994’) to the Additional District Judge, No. 2, Chittorgarh.

2. It is claimed in the writ petition that as per the law laid down by this Court in Smt. Ganga Devi v. District Judge, Bharatpur, reported in 2006 WLC (Raj.) UC 287, an election petition filed under Section 43 of the Act of 1994 can be transferred by the District Judge concerned to the Senior Civil Judge or Additional Senior Civil Judge only and not to any other court.

3. During the pendency of this writ petition, the District Judge, Chittorgarh has transferred the said election petition to the Senior Civil Judge vide order dated 19.1.2017, however, the petitioner is claiming that the Senior Civil Judge cannot proceed with the election petition from the stage, it has reached before the Additional District Judge, No. 2, Chittorgarh and the court is required to proceed with the election petition afresh.

4. The above argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is not liable to be accepted as the issue raised is no more res integra, as a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the case of Sheojilal v. District Judge, Bundi, reported in 2008 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 318 has held as under :-

“12. If eventually, this Court were to uphold the aforementioned argument of the petitioner, proceeding thus for held by the Court of Additional District Judge would in any case be liable to be saved by recourse to de facto doctrine. But, in my considered view, de facto doctrine would not be required to be invoked in the instant case because on appreciation of the rival submissions, I propose to decide this matter on consideration of the other legal arguments.

13. Distinction that I have noticed between Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act and Section 40 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act apart, it is evident from a dispassionate reading of section 43 of the Act that sub-section (1) thereof lays down that an election under this Act or the rules made there under may be called in question by any candidate at such election by presenting in the prescribed manner to the District Judge having jurisdiction a petition in this behalf on the prescribed grounds and within the prescribed period. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the Act of 1994 however empowers the District Judge that he may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, transfer such election petition for hearing and disposal to a Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge (SD) subordinate to him. The Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance was promulgated by the Rajpramukh of the State on 24.1.1950 in exercise of powers conferred on him by clause (3) of Article X of the Covenant of 1949. Ordinance promulgated by the Rajpramukh as aforesaid would by virtue of Article 372 of the Constitution have the same force of law as enacted by the State Legislature till replaced by another legislation on the subject. Provisions contained in Chapter II of the Ordinance would be relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the present case. Section 6 thereof, provides for classes of courts namely, (1) the court of District Judge, (2) the special civil court (3) the court of Civil Judge and (4) the Court of the Munsiff. Section 7 confers power upon the State Government to fix and alter the local limits of jurisdiction of any Civil Court by notification in the official gazette. Section 8 confers power upon the State Government to fix number of District Judges and from time to time, alter number of District Judge to be appointed for the whole of the State of Rajasthan. Section 9(1) provides that appointments of persons to be, and the posting