The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the presentation of an election petition before the Munsarim within the stipulated time period of 30 days before the District Judge.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahwa, District Dausa in Election Petition No.1/2020 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, has been dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that election of the petitioner as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Pakhar-21, Panchayat Samiti Mahwa, Tehsil Mundawar, District Dausa was challenged by the respondent No.1 by way of an election petition under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity "the Act of 1994") read with Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1994") framed thereunder. During the course of trial, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC raising an objection as to maintainability of the election petition on the premise that it was presented before the Senior Munsarim, District and Sessions Court, Dausa instead of before the learned District Judge, Dausa as envisaged under Section 43 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994. The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 10.01.2022, impugned herein.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Order 13 Rule 2 of the General Rules (Civil and Criminal), 2018, a Senior Munsarim can receive plaints or other papers under the Code, i.e., Civil Procedure Code only and not on election petition which, as per provisions of the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1994 can only be presented before the District Judge. He further submitted that even the provisions of General Clauses Act, 1897 shall not come to rescue of the election petition present before the Senior Munsarim instead of District Judge himself in view of the statutory provisions contained under the Act of 1994. He, therefore, prayed that the order impugned dated 10.01.2022.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. The issue involved herein is no more res integra. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Panna Ram versus Ramu Ram: 2020 (1) WLC (Raj.) 551, proceeded to hold as under:-

"14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the provisions applicable, this Court is of the opinion that the procedural laws shall be broadly applicable wherever the specific or special law is silent. A condition of procedure which is not being dealt with by the special law, shall have to be operated with the help of the statutory procedural law as prescribed.

15.This Court finds that though the presenting authority for the election petition is a District Judge but that is to over come the Section 15 of Civil Procedure Code, which requires every plaint and presentation to be made before the lowest competent court. Since the special duty was cast upon a Judge in the election matter, therefore, it was deemed appropriate by the legislator that such sensitive work shall be discharged only by an officer as senior as District Judge, and therefore, the legislative intention of Section 43 of the Act of 1994 was that the District Judge shall be the forum where the election tribunal would be conducting itself.

16. This Court also finds that Section 3(17) and Section 15 of the General Clauses Act have no bearing upon the facts of the present case as the meaning or the definition of District Judge is not under challenge by either of the parties and it is an accepted position that the District Judge shall be judge of principal civil court of original jurisdiction and does not require any further deliberation by this Court as it is not disputed by the respondents that the equivalent courts were holding the election tribunal. The issue under adjudication is whether the presentation was done by the election petitioner within the period of 30 days as prescribed.

17.