The District Judge has the authority to transfer an election petition to the Additional District Judge for disposal and the Additional District Judge has the jurisdiction to dispose of the same.

( 1 ) AN election for Mandleshwar Municipality was held at Mandleshwar where the court of the District Judge is situate for the Civil District of West Nimar, mandleshwar is also within the Revenue District. Section 20 of the Madhya Pradesh municipalities Act, 1961, provides for filing an election petition. The section reads as under:

"20. Election petitions.-- (1) No election or selection under this Act shall be called into question except by a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) Such petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 22-- (a ). . . . . (b) (i ). . . . . (ii ). . . . . to the District Judge, where such election or selection is held within the revenue District in which the Court of the District judge is situate, and in any other case, to the Additional District Judge having the permanent seat of his Court within the revenue District in which such election or selection is held and if there be more than one such Additional District judge within the said revenue District, to such one of them as the district Judge may specify for the purpose (hereinafter such District judge or Additional District Judge referred to as Judge ). X X X x"

Dattatraya, the non-applicant No. 1, had filed an election petition challenging the election of Babulal, the applicant, before the District Judge, Mandleshwar. The district Judge, however, transferred the petition for disposal to Shri G. K. Sharma, additional District Judge, Mandleshwar. The learned Additional District Judge set aside the election of the applicant Babulal. Babulal, there-Fore preferred a revision before the High Court as contemplated under Section 26 of the M. P. Municipalities act, 1961. In that revision it was urged before the learned Single Judge that under section 20 of the M. P. Municipalities Act the authority is conferred on the District judge or the Additional District Judge, as the case may be, as a persona designata or a special tribunal and, as such, the District Judge had no authority to transfer the election petition to the Additional District Judge for disposal and that the additional District Judge acted without jurisdiction in disposing of the same. Reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Motilal v. Narainprasad, 1967 Jab LJ 69 = (AIR 1967 Madh Pra 243 ). In that case, Rule 43 of the Cantonments Electoral Rules provided that an election petition could be presented to the District Judge of the District within which the election was held or where there was no District Judge, to such Judicial Officer as the State government might appoint in this behalf. Rule 45 then provided that the District judge (or the Officer appointed in accordance with Rule 43) or any Judicial Officer subordinate to him and not below such rank as the State Government may by notification prescribe in this behalf to whom the District Judge may transfer the petition, shall dispose of the petition. As the Additional District Judge had disposed of the election petition in that case, the question arose as to whether he acted with jurisdiction. On the wording of Rules 43 and 46 it was held that the District judge or the special officer appointed by the State Government was a persona designata and the functions assigned to him were ad hoc functions exercisable by that person and not functions additional to those allotted to him under the Civil courts Act of the State concerned, A similar view was taken in another case, Ghanshyamprasad v. Nootanesh Chandra, Misc. Petn. No. 43 of 1965 (Madb Pra ). That case was on the interpretation of the provisions in the Madhya Bharat municipalities Act, 1954.

( 2 ) ON the other hand, it was urged before the learned Single Judge that the jurisdiction conferred on the District Judge under Section 20 of the M. P. Municipalities Act is as the presiding officer of an established Court and not as a persona designata and that it was consequently open for