Order: — The proceedings in this writ petition arise out of an order passed by the District Munsif, Ambasamudram, as an Election Commissioner, constituted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958. An election was held to choose the Chairman of the Panchayat Union, Kalakad on, 13th August, 1970. The petitioner and the respondent were the contestants. The respondent secured nine votes and the petitioner eleven votes. The petitioner was declared elected as the Chairman. The respondent apparently desired to file an election petition. Under the rules, an election petition had to be filed within 15 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. The election petition was filed on 27th November, 1970, nearly three months after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. When the respondent filed such an application before the Election Commissioner and pleaded that his failure to file the election petition in time was not wilful and that he was prevented from sufficient cause f’orm filing it in time. The reasons given by the respondent for filing the election petition beyond the prescribed time were accepted as bona fide reasons and the delay in the presentation of the election petition was excused by the election Court. The petitioner as the respondent in the election petition stated that the election petition was not maintainable, as section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to such petitions and that the election Court was persona designata and, therefore, unless there was an express power conferred under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act or the election rules made thereunder, the Election Commissioner (the District Munsif) as persona designata had no juisjurisdiction to excuse the delay.

2. On the first question the Election Commissioner agreed that there was sufficient cause which prevented the respondent from filing the election petition in time. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding on merits rendered by the Election Court. But the more important point is, whether the Election Court which designated as a tribunal persona designato had the power to entertain an application for excusing the delay in the presentation of an election petition.

3. The Election Commissioner was of the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply and that he had the requisite jurisdiction. It is as against this part of the order that the petitioner is aggrieved.

4. The Election Court relying upon certain decisions cited by the respondent is of the view that any pleading presented before a tribunal which is persona designata but after the prescribed period of time, can be entertained by invoking section 5 of the limitation Act read with section 29 (2) thereto. If a tribunal is specially designated as a persona designata then it is always understood that the person pointed out or described individually as the tribunal is the person who is to sit in judgment. As pointed, out by the learned author Osborne in his ‘A concise Law Dictionary ‘a persona designata means “a person pointed out or described as an individual, as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of class, or as filling a particular character.”

5. A Full Bench of our Court in Paithasarathy v. Koteswara Rao1, pointed out that the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to revise the orders decided by a Judge designated as persona designata depends on whether the Judges therein referred to are acting as Courts, or acting merely as persona designata, that is to say, persons selected to act in the matter in their private capacity and not in their capacity as Judges. Thus, it is clear that the phrase ‘persona designata’ is a pointer to the situation that it is a particular person that is referred to as the adjudicator and his power and jurisdiction is not to be judged by the office or the class to which he belongs. He acts as directed b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document