A person who files a second nomination paper after filing the first nomination paper exhausts his right to stand as a candidate under section 14 (3) of the Central Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922, and the second nomination paper is invalid.

K.L. Pandey, J.

1. This is a revision under sub-section (5) of section 20-A of the Central Provinces Municipalities Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) against an order dated 12th October 1957 by which the. District Judge, Chhindwara, on an election petition under sub-section (2) of section 20-A ibid, declared void the election of the petitioner Ramkumar Sharma as a member returned from ward No, I of the Chhindwara Municipal Committee and further declared the respondent No. 1 Phoolchand as duly elected from that Ward.

2. The facts of the case in brief are these. In March-April 1957, general elections were held for replacing the pre-existing committee after the expiry of its time. Nominations were made for the various Wards of the municipality and the position obtaining in Ward No. 1 was as follows:-

(1) Phoolchand (respondent No. 1) nominated on 26-2-57 ( serial No. 31).

(2) Kalyandas respondent No. 2) nominated on 26-2-1957 (serial No. 38).

(3) Ramkumar Sharma (petitioner) nominated on 1-3-1957 ( serial No. 57)

(4) Janki Prasad (respondent No. 3) nominated on 1-3-1957 (serial No. 69 )

(5) Khillooram nominated on 1-3-1957 (serial No. 109)

3. After Ramkumar Sharma had filed on 1-3-1957 his nomination paper for ward No. 1, he filed on the same date another nomination paper for Ward No. 22 (serial No. 100), However, on the date of scrutiny (7-3-1957), the Supervising Officer found Ramkumar Sharma's nomination for ward No. 22 to be invalid as contravening the provisions of section 14 (3) of the Act and thereupon he withdrew that nomination.

4. So far as ward No. 1 was concerned Khillooram withdrew his nomination paper two days before the date of scrutiny. The nomination of Janki Prasad was rejected on the date of scrutiny. The other 3 nomination papers for Ward No. 1 referred to in paragraph 2 were accepted as valid. Thereafter, on 18 3-1957, Kalyandas withdrew from contest, leaving in the field only Ramkumar Sharma and Phoolchand. After the poll was taken on 5-4-1957, Ramkumar Sharma, who Secured a large number of votes, was notified as elected from the Ward.

5. Phoolchand, in his election-petition, urged that Ramkumar Sharma had filed on 1-3-1957 two nomination papers for two different wards that both the nomination papers were invalid as contravening section 14 (3) of the Act and that the election of Ramkumar Sharma from Ward No. 1 was therefore void. This election-petition was allowed by the District Judge, Chhindwara, who, while declaring void the election of Ramkumar Sharma from Ward No. 1, also declared Phoolchand to be duly elected from that Ward.

6. The order of the District Judge has been challenged on three grounds. In the first place, the District Judge was not empowered to decide the election-petition. Secondly, the election-petition was bad for non-joinder of Khillooram, who had withdrawn his nomination paper for Ward No. 1 before the date of scrutiny. Lastly, the view that both the nomination papers of Ramkumar Sharma were invalid is contrary to law.

7. As provided by sub-section (2) of Section 20-A of the Act, an election petition may be presented to "the District Judge or Additional District Judge or to a Civil Judge especially empowered by the Provincial Government in this behalf". In my view, this means that an election petition may be heard by the District judge or Additional District Judge. It may also be heard by a Civil judge if he is especially empowered in that behalf, The Statute itself empowers the District Judge or Additional District Judge to entertain and dispose of an election-petition and he has not to be empowered in that behalf : Bhajraj vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1958 JLJ 509). There is, therefore, no substance in the first ground.

8. The second ground has reference to Rule 3 (b) of the Rules framed under section 176 (2) (i) of the Act. Having regard to the view that I have taken of this case, I do not consider it necessary to express any opinion on the point.

9. In regard to the third ground, sub-section (3) of sec