ORDER

3.11.2004 — This writ appeal was heard on the question of jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Single Judge in deciding the writ petition as a preliminary issue. W.P. (C) No.5065 of 2004 from which this appeal arises had been filed challenging the order dated 21.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sone¬pur reversing the finding and order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepur in an election petition filed under Section 30 of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964.

2. There is no dispute at the Bar that as per amended rules of this Court, writ applications relating to the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 are to be heard by Division Bench. However, the aforesaid writ application was listed before the Hon’ble Single Judge who disposed of the same by his order dated 6.7.2004. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appel¬lant in this writ appeal that the Hon’ble Single Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ application as the amended rules of this Court provided that such writ applications are to be heard by Division Bench. On the above basis, it was further contended that the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge is without jurisdiction. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that when the matter was taken up before the Hon’ble Single Judge, the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Single Judge in hearing such matter was never questioned by the present appellant and, therefore after disposal of the same by the Hon’ble Single Judge the said question cannot be enter¬tained. The learned counsel for both the parties relied on cer¬tain decisions of this Court as well as Apex Court in favour of their respective contentions. The learned counsel for the re¬spondents relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Koopilan Uneen’s daughter Pathumma and others v. Koopilan Uneen’s Son Kuntalan Kutty and others reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 1683. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case held as follows :

“In order that an objection to the place of suing may be entertained by an appellate or revisional Court, the fulfillment of the following three conditions is essential : (1) The objec¬tion was taken in the Court of first instance. (2) It was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement. (3) There has been a consequent failure of justice. All these three conditions must co-exist.

Where the High Court upheld the objection to the territorial jurisdiction of a Court in appeal,the order of the High Court would be liable to be set aside even if the objection was raised at the proper time when the objector was unable to show that the trial in a wrong Court had led to a failure of justice.”

Reliance was also placed in the case of Indermani Kirtipal v. Union of Indian and others reported in AIR 1996 S.C.1567. In the said case a matter relating to promotion of an employee was decided by a single Member of the Tribunal. It was contended before the Apex Court that a single Member was not competent to decided the question in the issue and, therefore, the order was without jurisdiction. The Apex Court in the said case held as follows :

“........... Since the Tribunal consists of several members, a bench consisting of a single member may also be competent to dispose of certain matters. The matter having been decided by him after considering the case on merits, it is no longer open to the unsuccessful party to plead that the member had no jurisdiction to decide the issue or that the order suffers from initial lack of jurisdiction. It may be a case of improper disposal of the matter without touching the jurisdiction of the member who decid¬ed the matter.”

Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in the case of K. Shankar Rao Dora v. T. Boishnaba Dora and others reported in 1987 (I) OLR 55. This Court in the aforesaid case held as follows :

“Where objection as to jurisdiction has not been tak