Thokchom Amubi Singh v. Laisram Thanil Singh — 1963 DIGILAW 40 (GAU)

ORDER :- This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Manipur, dated 5-10-1962, by which he over-ruled the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner herein that the Additional District Judge had no power to hear the Election Petition filed before the District Judge by the respondent. 2. In the last Municipal Election, in which the petitioner and the respondent were the contesting candidates for Ward No. 12 of the Imphal Municipality the petitioner was declared elected. The respondent thereupon filed a petition before the District Judge as provided under Section 16 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 as extended to Manipur, to set aside the said election. At that time Shri O. Thambal Singh, was the officiating District Judge and he framed the issues in the case. Subsequently, he became the Additional District Judge on the appointment of Shri M.H. Khan as the District Judge. When this matter came up before Shri M.H. Khan, on 31-7-62, he passed an order that as the issues have already been framed by the Additional District Judge, when, he was officiating as District Judge the case was transferred to the file of the Additional District Judge. Thereafter the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge to enquire into the Election Petition was raised before him by the petitioner and after hearing arguments the Additional District Judge held on 5-10-62 that he had jurisdiction to enquire into the petition. Against the said order this revision petition has been filed. 3. The argument of the petitioner was as follows : Under Section 16 of the Assam Municipal Act, the Election Petition had to be filed before the District Judge of Manipur and it was accordingly filed before the District Judge. The procedure to be adopted and the powers of the Judge in holding the enquiry are provided in Section 17 of the said Act, according to which the District Judge or any Judicial Officer subordinate to him and not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge other than an officer exercising the powers of a Subordinate Judge ex-officio to whom the District Judge may transfer the petition, may after holding such enquiry as he deems necessary. In accordance with the prescribed procedure and subject to the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 pass an order confirming or amending the declared result of the election or setting the election aside. It was pointed out that under Section 17(1), either the District Judge or a Subordinate Judge to whom the District Judge may transfer the petition alone can hold the enquiry and it was further pointed out that under Section 17(4) an appeal shall lie to the District Judge from any decision or order of a Subordinate Judge, if the case was dealt with by a Subordinate Judge. It was therefore contended that the District Judge cannot transfer the petition to the Additional District Judge, but only to a Judge, subordinate to the District Judge or the District Judge has to hear the petition himself. It was pointed out that under Section 17(4) a decision or order of the District Judge was final, whereas if it was a decision of a Subordinate Judge an appeal would lie to the District Judge. Thus, the transfer to the Additional District Judge was without authority as it was against the provisions of the statute and as it would deprive the parties of an appeal to the District Judge as provided in the statute. In support of the said contention, the Supreme Court decision in Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 391 , the decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court in J.B. Mangharam and Co., Gwalior v. K.B. Kher, (S) AIR 1956 Madh-B. 183 and the decision of the Punjab High Court in Janak Dulari v. Narain Dass, AIR 1959 Punj 50 were relied on. 4. 4. It is better that I give the relevant portions of Sections 16 and 17 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, as applied to Manipur : 16 - "Proceedings to set aside an election - If the validity of an election of a Commissioner is brought in question by an unsuccessful candidate or person qualified to vote at the election to which such question refers, such person may, at any time within twenty-one days after the date of the declaration of the result of the election, file a petition in the prescribed manner before the District Judge of Manipur and shall at the same time deposit one hundred rupees in Court as security for the costs likely to be incurred : X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 - "Procedure and powers of Judge holding enquiry - (i) Where a petition has been filed under Section 16 the District Judge, or any judicial officer subordinate to him and not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge other than an officer exercising the powers of a Subordinate Judge ex-officio (hereinafter referred to in this chapter as the Judge) to whom, the District Judge may transfer the petition, may after holding such inquiry as he deems necessary, in accordance with the prescribed procedure and subject to the provisions of Sections 18 and 19, pass an order confirming or amending the declared result of the election or setting the election aside. X X X X X (4) An appeal shall lie to the District Judge from any decision or order of a Subordinate Judge, and a decision or order of the District Judge, either when he has himself made the enquiry or in appeal, shall be final". It will be seen from Sections 16 and 17 that the Election Petition is to be filed before the District Judge of Manipur and that the District Judge or a judicial officer subordinate to him, but not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge to whom the District Judge may transfer the petition is to hold the enquiry and give the decision. It will be further seen that if the District Judge held the enquiry and gave the decision, his decision was to be final, whereas if a Subordinate Judge to whom the District Judge transferred the petition gave the decision, an appeal will lie against the said decision to the District Judge. Now the question is whether the transfer of the case by the District Judge to the Additional District Judge is not permitted under the provisions of Section 17. 5. This question will depend to a very great extent on the meaning of the term "the District Judge" used under Sections 16 and 17. If the term "the District Judge" will include the Addition! District Judge also, there is no difficulty and the Additional District Judge can also enquire into the petition. The term "the District Judge" however is not defined in the Assam Municipal Act. We have therefore to turn the (Central) General Clauses Act, 1897, which has been made applicable to Manipur. Section 3(17) therein defines the term "District Judge" as follows : (17) :- "District Judge" shall mean the Judge of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, but shall not include a High Court in the exercise of its ordinary or extraordinary original civil jurisdiction". 6. The question therefore arises as to what is meant by "the Judge of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction" as far as Manipur is concerned. If the Additional District Judge is the Judge of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, he will also come within the purview of the term "District Judge". To decide this, we have to turn to the Manipur (Courts) Act, 1955 Section 16 of the Manipur (Courts) Act, provides that there shall be 3 classes of Civil Courts in the State of Manipur, namely, (1) the District Court, (2) the Court of Subordinate Judge, and (3) the Court of a Munsiff. Section 20 of the Manipur (Courts) Act, states that the District Court shall be the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district. Section 17(2), provides for the appointment of District Judge and it states that the Chief Commissioner shall, after consultation with the Judicial Commissioner, appoint as many persons as he thinks necessary to be District Judges and that he shall post one of these persons to each district as District Judge of that district. Section 17(2), provides for the appointment of District Judge and it states that the Chief Commissioner shall, after consultation with the Judicial Commissioner, appoint as many persons as he thinks necessary to be District Judges and that he shall post one of these persons to each district as District Judge of that district. But, as the whole Manipur is one district, only one District Judge has been appointed. Section 18 of the Act, provides that when the business pending before the Court of a District Judge requires the aid of an Additional District Judge for its speedy disposal, the Chief Commissioner may, after a consultation with the Judicial Commissioner, appoint such number of Additional District Judges as may be necessary and that the Additional District Judges so appointed shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge which the District Judge may assign to them and in the discharge of those functions they shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge. Next we shall turn to Section 2(iii) of the Act, which defines the District Court : 2(iii) District Court means the Court of the District Judge and includes the Court of the Additional District Judge". 7. Thus, reading Sections 20 and 2(iii) together, the District Judge and the Additional District Judge are Judges of the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in Manipur. From this if we turn to the definition of the "District Judge" in Section 3(17) of the General Clauses Act, it means that an Additional District Judge will also be included as the Judge of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and hence an Additional District Judge will also come within the meaning of the term "District Judge". 8. But what was argued by Shri R.K. Manisana Singh, appearing for the petitioner was that in Sections 16 and 17 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, the term used is "the District Judge" and not "District Judge", that the use of the article "the" before the word "District Judge", in Sections 16 and 17 is very significant and that therefore it can only mean the District Judge of Manipur and it cannot include the Additional District Judge of Manjpur. It was pointed out that in view of the wording in Sections 16 and 17 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, an Election Petition cannot be filed before the Additional District Judge direct and that the Additional District Judge cannot, therefore, deal with an Election Petition and he cannot also transfer the Election Petition to a Judicial Officer subordinate to him. Special stress was laid on Section 18(2) of the Manipur (Courts) Act, 1955 in which the powers of an Additional District Judge are specifically mentioned and it was pointed out that the Additional District Judge has the power only to discharge any of the functions of a District Judge which the District Judge may assign to him and that in the discharge of those functions he has the power to exercise the same powers as the District Judge. From this, it was pointed out that it is only the District Judge who can receive the Election Petition and who can deal an Election Petition under Sections 16 and 17 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 and that the Additional District Judge cannot do so. 9. I am unable to agree with this argument, Sections 16 and 17 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1955, in so far as they apply to Manipur have to be read along with the provisions of the Manipur (Courts) Act, 1955 and in particular with the provisions of Section 18(2) thereof. No doubt filing of the Election Petition can be made only before the District Judge, but on its being filed before the District Judge, there is nothing in Section 17 of the Assam Municipal Act, which will prevent the District Judge where there is an Additional District Judge in the District Court from assigning the function of dealing with the Election Petition to the Additional District Judge as S. 18(2) of the Manipur (Courts) Act, clearly permits the District Judge to assign any of his functions to the Additional District Judge and on such assignment, the Additional District Judge can exercise the same powers as the District Judge in the discharge of those functions. 10. If we read Section 17(1) of the Assam Municipal Act, it provides that the District Judge, may himself hold the enquiry or he may transfer the Election Petition to any Judicial Officer subordinate to him and not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge. 10. If we read Section 17(1) of the Assam Municipal Act, it provides that the District Judge, may himself hold the enquiry or he may transfer the Election Petition to any Judicial Officer subordinate to him and not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge. There is nothing in S. 17(1) which prevents the assignment of an Election Petition by the District Judge for enquiry to the Additional District Judge under Section 18(2) of the Manipur (Courts) Act, 1955. Such an assignment is not the transfer contemplated under Section 17(1) of the Assam Municipal Act. The Additional District Judge on his appointment is as much the Judge of the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction as the District Judge himself, as he is appointed when the business pending before the Court of the District Judge requires the aid of an Additional District Judge for its speedy disposal as provided in Section 18(1) of the Manipur (Courts) Act. Under Section 18(2), the Additional District Judge is appointed to discharge the same functions as the District Judge and to exercise the same powers as the District Judge and the only restriction is that he exercises such of the functions which the District Judge may assign to him. Thus, when the District Judge assigns a particular function as in this case, the enquiry into the Election Petition to the Additional District Judge, the latter exercises the same powers as the District Judge or in other words he functions as the District Judge in respect of the matters assigned to him by the District Judge. The Additional District Judge is not a Judge subordinate to the District Judge, but he is a judge of the District Court, having the same functions and powers as the District Judge in respect of matters assigned to him. Thus, he conducts the enquiry in the Election Petition and gives the decision as the District Judge or as the Judge of the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and hence under Section 17(4) of the Assam Municipal Act, his decision is final. It is only when the District Judge transfers the Election Petition (it is not an assignment) to a Subordinate Judge, the decision of that Subordinate Judge is not final as an appeal will lie to the District Judge. 11. It is only when the District Judge transfers the Election Petition (it is not an assignment) to a Subordinate Judge, the decision of that Subordinate Judge is not final as an appeal will lie to the District Judge. 11. The difficulty in this case arises out of the confusion as a result of the use of the expression "the District Judge" and not "the District Court" in Sections 16 and 17 of the Assam Municipal Act. If the term "the District Court" had been used in the said Sections, the present argument would not have been advanced as "the District Court" will clearly include the Court of the Additional District Judge. But as I have pointed out, there is nothing in Section 17 of the Assam Municipal Act, which, in any way, restricts the power of the District Judge under S. 18(2) of the Manipur (Courts) Act, from assigning any of the functions of the District Judge to the Additional District Judge and hence on the assignment of this Election Petition by the District Judge, the Additional District Judge has got full jurisdiction to enquire into the matter. 12. The decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner do not appear to apply to the present case. The decision of the Supreme Court, (S) AIR 1956 SC 391 , related to a matter which necessitated the consideration of the provisions of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court made it clear in paragraph 24 therein that their decision on the point was confined to the Punjab Act and that their decision will not apply in respect of similar Acts in other States which are differently worded. The Punjab Courts Act, 1918, did not provide for the appointment of an Additional District Judge to the District Court as the Manipur (Courts) Act, 1955 has done. Under the Punjab Courts Act, the three classes of Courts created were the Court of the District Judge, the Court of the Additional Judge and the Court of the Subordinate Judge, whereas, under the Manipur (Courts) Act, there is no separate Court of the Additional Judge, but the Court of the Additional District Judge is a part of the District Court. This makes all the difference. This makes all the difference. Their Lordships, in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the decision, pointed out that the Court of the Additional Judge under the Punjab Courts Act, constituted a distinct class of Court, that it is to be observed that the Act speaks of the Court of the Additional Judge and not of the Additional District Judge as is the case with certain other Acts in other parts of India, that the Punjab Courts Act, nowhere speaks of an Additional District Judge or an Additional Judge to the District Court and that this is a very different thing from the administrative distribution of work among the Judges of a single Court entitled to divide itself into Sections and sit as division Courts. Under the Manipur (Courts) Act, the District Judge administratively distributes the work to the Additional District Judge of his Court by assigning functions to him under Section 18(2) of the Manipur (Courts) Act and on such distribution of assignment, the Additional District Judge sits as a division Court. This was not possible under the Punjab Courts Act. Their Lordships further said that as the Punjab Courts Act does not contemplate the appointment of Additional Judges in the District Court, none can be appointed and that the Court of the Additional Judge under the Punjab Courts Act, is not a division Court of the Court of the District Judge, but separate and distinct Court of its own. This is not so under the Manipur (Courts) Act, where the Additional District Judge is a Judge of the District Court. 13. The decision in AIR 1959 Punj 50, is based on the interpretation of the Punjab Courts Act in the S. C. decision stated above and hence does not apply to our present case. 14. As for the decision, (S) AIR 1956 Madh-B. 183, it deals with an entirely different matter. There, the question was whether an Additional District Judge can be appointed by the Government as a Tribunal under Section 7(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without the approval of the High Court. Section 7(3)(b) provides that a Tribunal shall be a person who is or has been a District Judge. The question, therefore, was whether an Additional District Judge will be included within the meaning of the term "a District Judge". Section 7(3)(b) provides that a Tribunal shall be a person who is or has been a District Judge. The question, therefore, was whether an Additional District Judge will be included within the meaning of the term "a District Judge". The proviso to Section 7(3)(b) stated that no appointment under Section 7(3) to a Tribunal shall be made of any person not qualified under clause (a) or (b) except with the approval of the High Court of the State in which the Tribunal has or is intended to have its usual place of sitting. Thus, if an Additional District Judge will not be included within the term "a District Judge" in Section 7(3)(b), the approval of the High Court was necessary for such appointment. What the Madhya Bharat High Court held was that without such approval an Additional District judge cannot be appointed. But, in our present case, the question is whether the District Judge can under Section 18(2) of the Manipur (Courts) Act, administratively assign an Election Petition to an Additional District Judge, who is also a Judge of the District Court. That question did not have to be considered in the said decision. There are, no doubt, certain observations made in the said decision in dealing with the definition of "District Judge" in Section 3(17) of the General Clauses Act, that no one except the Judge of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction can come within the definition and that the use of the article "the" before the word "Judge" in the definition has specifying or particularizing force as opposed to the indefinite and generalizing force of "a" and denotes that it is not any Judge of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction that can be termed as "a District Judge", but that only the sole presiding Judge of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction can be called "a District Judge". It is not necessary for me to canvass the correctness of those observations for deciding the present case. It is enough to say that a different view has been taken on this very question dealt with by the Madhya Bharat High Court in the decision of the Assam High Court - G.C. Bezfarua, v. State of Assam, AIR 1954 Assam 161. It is enough to say that a different view has been taken on this very question dealt with by the Madhya Bharat High Court in the decision of the Assam High Court - G.C. Bezfarua, v. State of Assam, AIR 1954 Assam 161. It has been held in that decision that the Additional District Judge is fully competent within the meaning of Section 7(3)(b) and he can validly constitute the Tribunal without the approval of this High Court having been obtained for his appointment and that an Additional District Judge comes within the meaning of "a District Judge" for the purpose of Industrial Disputes Act. It was further held that as the whole abject of the enactment, namely, the Industrial Disputes Act, was to provide amongst others, for officers of the experience and status of a District Judge to preside over such tribunals, it would be unreasonable to exclude an Additional District Judge from that category who for all practical purpose discharges the same judicial functions as a District Judge. A reference was also made to Article 236 of the Constitution in which the expression "the District Judge" has been stated to include an "Additional District Judge". 15. For the above reasons, I hold that the finding of the Additional District Judge that he is competent to hear the Election Petition is correct. The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed with the costs of the respondent. Petition dismissed.