P.V. Dixit, C.J.

In this case the Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition restraining the Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh, (opponent No. 1) from enquiring into and disposing of a petition filed by the second opponent Kishanlal under Section 20-A of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, challenging the election of the Petitioner as a member from a ward to the Municipal Committee, Kharsia.

Section 20-A of the Act, so far as is material here, runs as follows:

(1) No election or selection notified under Section 20 shall be called into question except by a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) Such petition shall be presented to the District Judge or Additional District Judge or to a Civil Judge especially empowered by the Provincial Government in this behalf within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the election or selection was held and no petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within fourteen days from the date on which the result of such election or selection was notified.

The petition, which Kishanlal, the defeated candidate, filed, was headed: "In the Court of the 1st Civil Judge, Raigarh, Election Petition under Section 20-A of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922." It was presented on 27th June 1958 before Shri Acharya, who was not on the date of the presentation of the petition a Civil Judge, First Class, bub was the First Additional District Judge, Raigarh. Under a notification issued on 6th November 1947, the Government had empowered all Judges of the Courts of Civil Judges, First Class, to enquire into and dispose of election petitions arising within their respective jurisdictions. At the hearing of the election petition, the applicant raised the preliminary objection that the election petition was not presented to the proper authority; that after the coming into force of the M. P. Courts (Amendment) Act, 1950, abolishing the distinction between Civil Judges, Class-I, and Civil Judges, Class II, no fresh notification was issued by the Government under Section 20-A; that, therefore, the petition could not be presented and enquired into by any Civil Judge; that the election petition having been addressed to the Court of the Civil Judge, First Class, could not be entertained by the Additional District Judge; and that, therefore, Shri Acharya had no jurisdiction to enquire into the petition as an Additional District Judge. It appears that the petition was later on transferred by the orders of the District Judge from the Court of Mr. Acharya to the Court of Mr. Mukasdar, Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh. The Petitioner further raised the objection that the District Judge had no power to transfer the petition from the Court of one Additional District Judge to that of another. The preliminary objection raised by the Petitioner was overruled by Shri Mukasdar, Second Additional District Judge, Raigarh.

Having heard Shri A.P. Sen, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we have reached the conclusion that this petition must be dismissed. The objection raised by the Petitioner as to the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge to enquire into the election petition assumes that the Judges mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 20-A of the Act as persona designata and nob as Courts and that, therefore, the petition addressed to the Civil Judge, First Class, could not be enquired into by an Additional District Judge and could not also be transfered from one Additional District Judge to another. This is not so. In the consideration of the question whether a presiding officer is acting as a persona designata or a Court, the important points to be investigated are the source of his authority, the nature of proceedings and the action taken therein. A persona designata, as the phrase implies, is an individual as distinguished from a member of a class. It will be seen that Section 20-A confers power on the District Judge, or the Additional District Judge or