Judgment :- 1. The 2nd respondent filed Election Petition No. 3/63 to declare the election of the petitioner as a member of the Panchayat in question void and that he was the duly elected member. Among the grounds, the 2nd respondent alleged that the counting of votes was not properly done by the Returning Officer. He therefore, prayed for a recount of the votes. The petitioner opposed the petition on two grounds. In the first place he contended that there was no valid presentation of the election petition and as such no question of recounting arises. Secondly he contended that the Tribunal had no power to recount the votes and therefore, there should be no recounting of the votes. As regards the second point the Tribunal held that there was no necessity to order a recount and as regards the first question the Tribunal held that the election petition was validly presented. The writ petitioner questions the validity of this order on the ground that the view of the Tribunal that the election petition has been properly presented is erroneous, and therefore, there was no proper election petition before the Tribunal and prays for a writ of prohibition. 2. The relevant rules relating to the matter is contained in the Kerala Panchayats (Conduct of Election and Election Disputes) Rules, 1961. In this case the election petition was presented to the head clerk of the Munsiff's Court and not to the Munsiff personally. The contention of the writ petitioner was that the petition was not properly presented, and therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enquire into the petition. The relevant portion of R.117 is in the following terms: " (1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-clauses (a) to (d) of S.22 (1) of the Act. The relevant portion of R.117 is in the following terms: " (1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-clauses (a) to (d) of S.22 (1) of the Act. (2) An election petition shall be deemed to have been presented to the Munsiff, (a) when it is delivered to the Munsiff or to such other officer as may be appointed by him in this behalf (i) by the person making the petition, or (ii) by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition; or (b) when it is sent by registered post and is delivered to the Munsiff or the Officer so appointed." The question for consideration is whether the presentation of the petition to the Head Clerk was a valid presentation. The Tribunal held that the petition was properly presented to the Munsiff. Mr. Shamsuddin, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that this view is against the ruling of this Court in Pazhanikutty Moothan v. Vasudevan (1964 KLT. 860). In that case Vaidialingam, J. said albeit obiter that an election petition under the Kerala Municipalities (Decision of Election Disputes) Rules, 1961, must be presented to the District Judge personally and not to the Sheristadar of the District Court. Mr. Muhammed, appearing for the 2nd respondent, submitted that the view of the learned judge requires reconsideration and relied on Ratnam Pillai v. Sellappa Reddiar (1963-2 MLJ. 381) in support of his contention that the Election Petition was properly presented to the Munsiff. In that case it was held that an Election Petition presented to the Head Clerk of the Munsiff's Court was validly presented to the Election Commissioner. No doubt the rule that fell to be considered in that case was different, but I do not think that that would make much difference. In discussing the question whether the petition has been properly presented, the learned judges observed as follows: "Mr. V.P. Raman, however, contends that as, under sub-clause (3) to R.1 the Election Court is a District Munsiff exercising jurisdiction persona designata, the election petition should be given to him personally. There is a misapprehension in the argument. The effect of the rule is that the District Munsiff exercising jurisdiction under the Rules is not functioning as representing a Court, that is, the District Munsiff's Court, but as a persona designata. There is a misapprehension in the argument. The effect of the rule is that the District Munsiff exercising jurisdiction under the Rules is not functioning as representing a Court, that is, the District Munsiff's Court, but as a persona designata. In other words, it is not a case of the District Munsiff's Court functioning through him, but the officer himself functioning as a Court. In Parthasarathi v. Koteswara Rao (192-4-46 M.L.J. 201), Schwabe, C.J., while considering the jurisdiction of the High Court under S.115, Civil Procedure Code, over matters decided by a judge designated persona designata observed: 'That depends on whether the judges therein referred to are acting as Courts, or acting merely as persona designata, that is to say, persons selected to act in the matter in their private capacity and not in their capacity as Judges.' This point has further been clarified by Gurgenven, J., in Mahabaleswarapa v. Gopalaswami (1935-69 MLJ. 589) thus; 'A persona designata, as the phrase implies is a person pointed out by name or other personal description in contra-distinction to one whose identity is to be ascertained by the office which he holds.... We take the meaning to be simply this, that the selected judge is to act not in virtue of his jurisdiction as such judge but in virtue of a species of extra jurisdiction, specially conferred. The work has no connection with his ordinary duties; but, so far from being done by him as persona designata it attaches to him by virtue of his office, and he does it ex officio.' It is because of this principle that the Election Commissioner is not regarded as an ordinary civil court with the trappings of right of appeal and right of revision. Under R.1 (3), to which he made reference, the District Munsiff is constituted persona designata only for the purpose of exercising his jurisdiction, that is to say, in the matter of election dispute. The effect of that provision will be that neither an appeal nor a revision petition will lie against the order in such a case. That does not, however, mean, that the District Munsiff should not have the assistance of his subordinates for the performance of ministerial acts. The effect of that provision will be that neither an appeal nor a revision petition will lie against the order in such a case. That does not, however, mean, that the District Munsiff should not have the assistance of his subordinates for the performance of ministerial acts. To hold otherwise or to accept the argument which Mr V.P. Raman has advanced with so much earnestness, would be that the Election Commissioner would have to himself write out and issue processes or even serve them, to write out copies of his order or even deliver such copies to the parties. Obviously, that would not have been the intention of the rule-making authority. Reason and convenience therefore, require that such ministerial acts should be done by subordinate officers. In our opinion, that an Election Commissioner under the Rules is not functioning as a Civil Court, but only as a persona designata only means that he is performing his judicial acts as such. But attendant ministerial acts like the presentation of the petition, making out copies, issuing of process, etc., can be done by the subordinates of the District Munsiff." Mr. Muhammed submitted that if the petition has been really delivered to the Munsiff, it is immateral whether it was actually presented only to the Head Clerk. As the presentation of the petition is effected by delivering the same to the Munsiff, it might be that the presentation of the petition to the Head Clerk as the ministerial agent of the Munsiff would operate as a delivery of the same to the Munsiff himself personally. Mr. Shamsuddin said that statutory requirements of election have to be strictly observed; but that does not mean that an approach to the question agreeable to commonsense is foreclosed. It is well-known that in this country certiorari will not generally issue in a case where a long drawn-out argument is necessary to convince the Court that there is an error of law in the order. I do not think that there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record as two views are possible. There is no self-evident error here. I decline to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 3. The writ petition fails, and it is dismissed. No costs. Dismissed.