JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) IN an election for the Office of Chairman of Krishi Upaj mandi Samiti, Satna, petitioner No. 2 was declared to Have been duly elected on 29-10-1985. Respondents 1 and 2 filed an election petition challenging the election of petitioner No. 2 which we are informed, is pending in the Court of Additional Collector, satna. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners that the election petition which had been filed by the respondents 1 and 2, was barred by time and consequently without going into the merits of the said election petition, it deserved to be dismissed. This plea, however, did not find favour with the Additional Collector and by his order dated 5-5-1987, he held that the election petition, as filed on 15-11-1985, was within time. In this connection, he pointed out that the result of the election having been declared on 29-10-1985 and 11-11-1985 to 14-11-1985 being holidays, the said election petition was apparently within limitation. It is this order of the Additional Collector dated 5-5-1987 which is sought to be quashed. ( 2. ) A prayer has further been made in the writ petition that an order dated 15-5-1987 be also quashed. During the course of arguments, however, learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the relief for quashing the order dated 15-5-1987. Another prayer which has been made in the writ petition is for declaring sub-rule (13) of Rule 54 of Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi (Adhisuchana Prakashan Riti, Bharsadhak samiti Tatha Mandi Samiti Gathan) Niyam, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), to be ultra vires. ( 3. ) IT has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that the period of limitation for filing an election petition under clause (a) of sub-rule (13) of Rule 54 is 7 days and the election petition not having been filed within this period, was barred by time. ( 3. ) IT has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that the period of limitation for filing an election petition under clause (a) of sub-rule (13) of Rule 54 is 7 days and the election petition not having been filed within this period, was barred by time. In support of this submission, it has been pointed out that whereas an amendment was made in sub-rule (13) of Rule 54 by a notification dated 23-3-1983 published in the m. P. Rajpatra dated 29-4-1983 whereby for the words seven days, the words fifteen days were substituted in clause (b) of sub-rule (13), the said amendment has been taken to be in clause (a) of sub-rule (13) and it is because of this mistake that 15 days has been taken to be the limitation for filing an election petition under clause (a) of sub-rule (13 ). In our opinion, clause (b) appears to be a misprint in the notification dated 23-3-1983 for clause (a ). In this connection, it may be pointed out that the original rules as framed, were published vide notification dated 7-2-1974 in the M. P. Rajpatra dated 8-2-1974 and sub-rule (13) of Rule 54, as published in the aforesaid Rajpatra, reads as hereunder: "13. (a ). In the event of a dispute arising as to the validity of the election of chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, it shall be referred to the director within a period of seven days from the date of the meeting concerned, for decision. The reference shall be made by the person concerned in writing giving a concise statement of materials on which he relies. (b ). Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Director on the reference under clause (b) of this sub-rule, may prefer an appeal in writing to the State Government within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt or communication of such decision to him and the decision of the State government in respect of such an appeal shall be final. " The word collector was substituted for the word director in the aforesaid sub-rule by a subsequent amendment. Its perusal indicates that the words seven days are to be found in clause (a) of sub-rule (13) and not in clause (b) of the said sub-rule. In clause (b), on the other hand, the words used are fifteen days. " The word collector was substituted for the word director in the aforesaid sub-rule by a subsequent amendment. Its perusal indicates that the words seven days are to be found in clause (a) of sub-rule (13) and not in clause (b) of the said sub-rule. In clause (b), on the other hand, the words used are fifteen days. In clause (b) of sub-rule (13), the words fifteen days being there from the very inception, there was no occasion to substitute fifteen days in the said clause by the 1983 amendment. The said amendment, as seen above, substitutes the words seven days by the words fifteen days. Since the words seven days are to be found in clause (a) of sub-rule (13) in the Rules as originally published, it is apparent that when the words seven days were substituted by the words fifteen days by the 1983 notification, it referred to clause (a) sub-rule (13) and not to clause (b ). It is this circumstance on the basis of which we are of the opinion that clause (b) is a misprint for clause (a) in the amendment notification of the year 1983. Since the election petition in the instant case was filed within the prescribed period of limitation of 15 days, we find no error in the impugned order dated 5-5-1987. I. In regard to the plea that sub-rule (13) of Rule 54 is ultra vires, it has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the M. P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam), contemplates that if there is dispute in regard to the validity of an election of Chairman or Vice-Chairman, the Collector, if he is the Presiding Officer, shall decide the said dispute and if the Presiding Offieer is some Officer other than the Collector, he shall refer the dispute to the Collector for decision. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, since sub-rule (13) of Rule 54 contemplates an application being filed by the person concerned straightway to the Collector, even in a case where the Presiding officer was a person other than the Collector, it is ultra vires being inconsistent with the provisions of Section 12 (6) of the Adhiniyam. We find no substance in this submission. We find no substance in this submission. Section 12 (6) of the Adhiniyam only prescribes that the Collector shall be the competent Officer to decide the dispute about the validity of election of a Chairman or vice-Chairman. It does not prescribe the procedure for filing an election petition by the person concerned. Sub-rule (13) of Rule 54, on the other hand, prescribes the said procedure. There is/therefore, no inconsistency between the two. ( 4. ) THE matter can be looked into from another angle. As seen above, it is the collector who is the Officer empowered to decide the dispute in regard to the validity of election of a Chairman even in those cases where the Presiding Officer is a person other than the Collector. Under sub-rule (13) of Rule 54, the Presiding Officer, if he is a person other than the Collector, has not been empowered to pass any order on the election petition that may be filed by the person concerned. In passing on the election petition to the Collector, the Presiding Officer virtually acts like a conduit pipe. The authority competent to decide it being the Collector, an election petition, even if it is not presented to the Presiding Officer for being forwarded to the Collector and is presented to the Collector straightway, the jurisdiction of the Collector to decide the said election petition would, in no way, be affected. We accordingly find no substance even in the submission that sub-rule (13) of Rule 54 of the Rules is ultra vires. ( 5. ) LASTLY it was urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of sub-rule (13) of Rule 54, as also the provisions contained in this behalf in Section 12 (6) of the adhiniyam, an election petition can only be decided by the Collector and not by the additional Collector inasmuch as the Collector is a persona designata. We find it difficult to agree with this submission also. ( 6. ) IN Central Talkies Ltd. , Kanpur vs. Dwarka Prasad, AIR 1961 SC 606 a question arose as to whether district Magistrate used in Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, was a persona designata or not. We find it difficult to agree with this submission also. ( 6. ) IN Central Talkies Ltd. , Kanpur vs. Dwarka Prasad, AIR 1961 SC 606 a question arose as to whether district Magistrate used in Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, was a persona designata or not. Referring to the submission that the District Magistrate was persona designata, it was pointed out that an Additional District Magistrate who has been appointed as such by a notification under Section 10 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereunder he is invested with all the powers of the District Magistrate under that Code as well as under any other law for the time being in force, is competent to deal with an application under section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act for permission to file a civil suit without special authorisation from the District Magistrate. The effect of this decision is that unless the District Magistrate was a persona designata, an Additional district Magistrate could take cognizance of an application under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act if he was empowered to do so by some statutory provision such as Section 10 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in that case or even in the absence of such statutory provision if he was given special authorisation from the District Magistrate. ( 7. ) AS regards the submission that the District Magistrate was the persona designata, it was held that district Magistrate mentioned in Section 3 of the aforesaid act, was not a persona designata inasmuch as persona designata is a person who is pointed out or described as an individual as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of a class, or as filling a particular character. ( 8. ) ON the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central talkies Ltd (supra) it is not possible to take the view that the Collector referred to in section 12 (6) of the Adhiniyam or sub-rule (13) of Rule 54 of the Rules, is a persona designata. ( 8. ) ON the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central talkies Ltd (supra) it is not possible to take the view that the Collector referred to in section 12 (6) of the Adhiniyam or sub-rule (13) of Rule 54 of the Rules, is a persona designata. The question as to whether in the instant case, the Additional Collector before whom the election petition is pending, is authorised to decide the said election petition in pursuance of any statutory provision or special authorisation, is a question which, in our opinion, is not possible to be gone into in the present writ petition, particularly because as to whether there is some special authorisation or not, is not a pure question of law and the fact as to whether there is any such special authorisation, will have to be investigated. This question is, therefore, left open. ( 9. ) IN the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. I. A. No. 3354/87 also stands rejected. Petition dismissed.