JUDGMENT : M.K. Mukherjee, CJ. Assailing a final order passed by the Special/Additional District Judge, Pilibhit on an election petition presented u/s 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 ('Act' for short), the Appellants filed a writ petition before a learned Judge of this Court. By an order dated May 6, 1992, the learned Judge rejected the writ petition and aggrieved thereby the Appellants have filed this Special Appeal. 2. When the appeal is taken up for hearing on the question of its admission, a threshold question as to its maintainability is raised on behalf of the Respondents relying upon the provisions of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the Court. It is submitted on their behalf that while dealing with an election petition u/s 19 of the Act the District Judge functions as a tribunal and therefore the appeal is not maintainable in view of the embargo therein. 3. In repelling the above contention Mr. Khare, the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants, submits that the District Judge while dealing with, an election petition under the Act functions as an 'authority' as envisaged under the above Rule and not as a tribunal and therefore this Special Appeal is maintainable. 4. To properly appreciate the respective contentions of the learned Advocates it will be necessary to reproduce Rule 5 which is as under: 5. Special Appeal--An appeal shall lie to the Court from a Judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award (a) of tribunal Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act. with respect to any of the matters, enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act) of one judge. 5. On a careful perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly those of Sections 22 and 23, which deal with the hearing of election petition and lay down the procedure for the same, we find that the District Judge functions as and has the powers there under similar to those of a Court. It must therefore be held that the District Judge while dealing with an election petition functions as a Tribunal and not as a Governmental authority as envisaged in the above quoted Rule. 6. We, therefore, uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the appeal.