Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Bishambhar Dayal, C. J., S. P. Bhargava & R. J. Bhave, JJ.
Babulal
v.
Dattatraya & others
C. Revn. No. 634 of 1965 against order passed by Shri G, K, Sharma, Additional District Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar
Decided on : 3-5-1966.
(2) Civil Courts Act, 1958 (M.P.) - Ss.3 & 7-powers of the Additional District Judge-Municipalities Act, 1961 (M. P.) - S.20 (2).
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.24 -powers of the Additional District Judge- Municipalities Act, 1961 (M. P.) - S.20 (2).
An election petition under the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961, was presented to the District Judge, who transferred it to the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge set aside the election. In a revision petition before the High Court filed under section 26 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, it was contended that the decision of the Additional District Judge was without jurisdiction, and the District Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer the election petition to the Additional District Judge either under section 7 of the M. P. Civil Courts Act or section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, as that the District Judge acted as persona designata under section 20 (2) of the M. P. Municipalities Act.
Held: It is competent for an Additional District Judge whose Court is situated at the saIl1e place where the Court of District Judge is situated to hear and decide an election petition which the District Judge transferred to it for disposal having regard to the provisions contained in section 20 of the M. P.Municipalities Act, 1961. 1967 JLJ 64 dissented from. 1931 AC 546 relied on. 1960 JLJ 261 & 1958 JLJ 509 followed. AIR 1956 SC 391 referred to. [Para 14
(4) Words & phrases-persona designata-who is- District Judge in section 20, M. P. Municipalities Act- is not persona designata.
When a statute confers authority on a judicial officer, one should be slow in saying that the legislature confers such authority on the said judicial officer as a persona designata, especially when a persona designata is “a person who is pointed out or described as an individual as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of class or as filling a particular character." It is from this point of view that the provisions of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961, and the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958, must be considered. Now, in this State the Civil District and the Revenue District are not co-extensive. In certain cases, two or more Revenue Districts are included in the same Civil District. In conferring authority on the District Judge regarding election petitions arising from the Revenue District where be holds his office while conferring similar authority on the Additional District Judge where he bolds his Court in another Revenue District the idea is to confine the disposal of the election petitions within the geographical area comprised in a Revenue District. The idea appears to be to save the parties from unnecessary expenditure of going to long distances to get the dispute settled. Only because two distinct authorities are mentioned in section 20 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, the conclusion is not justified that the authority is conferred on them as persona designata. The District Judge or the Additional District Judge is referred in that section as a Judge, that is to say, a person holding a judicial office and the reference cannot be said to be a reference to a persona designata as indicated above. [ Para 6
(5) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) - S.20 - scheme and purpose of Civil Courts Act, 1958 (M. P.)-Ss. 3 & 7.
It is, no doubt, true that under section 3 of the M. P. Civil Courts Act the Court of the District Judge and the Court of the Additional District Judge are different classes of Courts and an Additional District Judge is not an adjunct of the Court of the District Judge. But from the provisions of section 7 of the said Act it would appear that the Additional District Judge is not allotted any function of his own. Sub-section (2) of section 7 provides that an Additional District Judge shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge, including the functions of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, which the District Judge may, by general or special order, assign to him and in the discharge of such functions he shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge. From this provision it is clear that an Additional District Judge is a delegate of the powers entrusted to him by the District Judge and in the case of such delegation he exercises all the powers of the District Judge, including those of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. It thus follows that any statutory jurisdiction conferred on the District Judge can also be exercised by the Additional District Judge if the same is entrusted to him by the District Judge. The expression "any of the functions of a District Judge, including the functions of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdictions' is wide enough to authorise the District Judge to delegate his own powers vested in him under the M. P. Municipalities Act. Even the Additional District Judge having his seat in the Revenue District is not authorised to exercise any powers on his own. Re can exercise only those powers which are delegated to him by the District Judge. If the provisions of section 20 of the M. P. Municipalities Act are considered in this background, it would be clear that the election petition is to be entertained by the District Judge or his delegate. This is made more clear in section 20 under the provision which authorises the District Judge to nominate anyone of the Additional District Judges for this purpose if in the same Revenue District then: are more than one Additional District Judge. In this view of the matter, it would follow that what section 20 contemplates is that the election petition shall be entertained by the District Judge; and if the matter comes from another Revenue District, it shall be entertained by the delegate or the nominee of the District Judge and that this provision is made with a view to get the election petition disposed of within the geographical limits of a Revenue District and nothing more. [ Para 7
(6) Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 (M.P.) - Rr. 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 & 18 - purpose of-definition of District Judge-nature of powers given -Municipalities Act. 1961 (M. P.)-S. 20 (1), A separate definition of a Judge in the Rules was not called for in view of the definition given in section 20 (2) of the Act. We cannot read in that definition something more which is not in section 20 of the Act, as, to that extent, the rule would be repugnant to the main provision. When any authority is conferred on a Court and a procedure is provided therefor. it is no doubt true that the Court is required to follow that procedure. If the rules curtail any of the powers conferred on such Court under its ordinary procedure to that exent the ordinary procedure would stand modified. The rules in question in no way try to curtail such a procedure. What the rules do is to confer the procedural powers already vested in the Court. To that extent, the rules can be treated as superfluous or redundant. [ Para 9
(7) Election-right to get elected -nature of-when becomes a civil right.
It is no doubt true that the right to stand for election or to elect is not a Common Law right and is a statutory right. Even so, that becomes a civil right as soon as it is conferred by the statute, and once the disposal of the dispute is entrusted to a civil Court, the procedure of that Court must apply unless it is prohibited by the statute itself. [Para 12
Newaskar, J.-1. Question which is raised in this revision petition is whether it is competent for an Additional District Judge, whose Court is situated at the same place where the Court of the District Judge is situated, to hear and decide an election petition presented to the Court of District Judge after its being transferred to that Court under the orders of the District Judge.
2. The election for the Mandleshwar Municipality was held in this case at Mandleshwar where the Court of District Judge is situated. Mandleshwar naturally is therefore within the Revenue District wherein the Court of District Judge is situated.
3. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act) which are material for the purpose of the present case provide as under :
"(1) No election or selection under Act shall be called into question except by a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of the section.
(2) Such petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in section 22(a) by a candidate at such election or selection; or (b) (i) in the case of an election of a Councillor, by any voter of the ward concerned;
(ii) in the case of a selection of a Councillor, by any Councillor;
to the District Judge, where such election or selection is held within the revenue district in which the Court of the District Judge is situated, 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)."
4. It seems clear from these provisions that the election petition in the present case had to be presented to the District Judge as provided in section 20 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. This was undoubtedly so done. That sub-section provides that the District Judge or the Additional District Judge to whom an election petition is required to be presented under that sub-section is referred to in the subsequent section as Judge'.
5. Section 22 of the Act then lays down :
"(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the Judge is of the opinion(a) that on the date of his election or selection a returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified, to be chosen as a Councillor;
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his agent; or
(c) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected; or
(d) that the result of the election or selection, in so far it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected
(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination; or
(ii) by the improper acceptance or refusal of any vote or reception of any vote which is void;
(iii) by the non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder save the rules framed under section 29 in so far as they relate to preparation and revision of list of voters; he shall declare the election or selection of the returned candidate to be void.
(2) If in the opinion of the Judge a returned candidate has been guilty by an agent of any corrupt practice, but the Judge is satisfied(a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election or selection by the candidate and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the instructions, and without the consent of the candidate;
(b) that the candidate took: all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt practice at the election or selection;
and
(c) that in all other respects the election or selection was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agents;
then the Judge may decide that the election or
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
