The main legal point established in the judgment is the delegation of powers from the District Judge to the Additional District Judge and the jurisdictional implications of the distribution memo issued by the District Judge.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. Observing the apparent conflict in the decisions rendered in the cases of Ashok Barman vs. Sadhana w/o Pratiman Jain and another 1997(2) MPU 167 and Malik Singh Chawla vs. Surendra Kumar Lakhers and others AIR 1998 MP 321 and reading the said decisions in juxtaposition with the ratio decidendi of Anup Pyarelal vs. Baboolal Rambux and another 1979 MPLJ 487 a learned Single Judge thought it apposite to recommend the case for reference to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement. That is how the present civil revision has been placed before us.

2. Before we advert to the legal arena we think it appropriate to narrate the facts which have been uncurtained to give rise to this reference. The non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 filed an election petition No. 2/2000 before the learned Additional District Judge, Beohari under Section 20 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the applicant and non-applicants Nos. 4 to 17. It is pertinent to state here the election petition was presented before the said Additional District Judge on 24-1-2000 challenging the election of the applicant to the post of the President, Nagar Panchayat Beohari on certain grounds. Some interlocutory applications were filed by the non-applicants 1 to 3 and orders were passed thereon by the Election Tribunal. In the present revision the learned counsel has not assailed the orders passed on those interlocutory applications. The learned counsel for the applicant has confined the challenge to the order dated 3-5-2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge refusing to reject the election petition on the ground of maintainability. It is worth noting here that the revisionist invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending, inter alia, that under Section 20 of the Act the election petition could be presented only before the District Judge, Shahdol as Beohari is within the revenue district of Shahdol and the said revenue district has a permanent District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge considered the facts and relied upon the distribution memo passed by the learned District Judge, Shahdol dated 27-12-1999 whereby the learned District Judge has assigned the work of hearing of election petitions preferred under Section 20 of the Act to the learned Additional District Judge and accordingly negatived the prayer made by the petitioner.

3. Before the learned Single Judge it was contended that as per Section 20 of the Act the election petition could only have been entertained by the District Judge, Shahdol and not by the Additional District Judge, Beohari. To substantiate the said contention reliance was placed on the decision rendered in the cases of Ashok Barman (supra) as well as Anup Pyarelal (supra). Per contra, the learned counsel for the non-applicants had drawn inspiration from the decision rendered in the case of Malik Singh Chawla (supra) to contend that the Additional District Judge, Beohari could entertain the election petition. As has been indicated hereinabove noticing conflicting views the learned Single Judge thought it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

4. We have heard Mr. R.P. Jain, and Mr. J.L. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. L.S. Baghel, learned Senior counsel for the non-applicants.

5. It is canvassed by Mr. Jain that Section 20 of the Act is mandatory and under the said provision an election petition is to be presented before the District Judge if the election is held within the revenue district in which the Court of the District Judge is situate. Learned counsel has submitted that in the case of Ashok Barman (supra) the learned Single Judge has categorically held that application has to be presented to the District Judge alone. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Shri Deo Parasnathji Mousuma Ghanshyam Bu