JUDGMENT 1. - Short and interesting question arises in this revision petition as to what is the scope of Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj. (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1994) in connection with the transfer of election petition filed before the District Judge. 2. The petitioner Smt. Manju Saini, is a duly elected Sarpanch of village Panchayat Nayan, Panchayat Samiti Shahpura, District Jaipur constituted under the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1994). 3. The non-petitioner Smt. Prabhati was a contesting candidate in the said election and after declaration of result the petitioner elected as Sarpanch by the, Returning Officer concerned. The non-petitioner instituted a civil suit under Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur District. This civil suit came to be registered in the said court as Civil Suit No. 31 of 1995 and the petitioner was summoned to appear before the said court on 15.4.1995. The petitioner submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and 151 CPC and under Rule 80, 81, 82 and 83 of the Rules of 1994 before the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur on.15.4.1995. The copy of the application was supplied to the opposite party on the same day and the case was adjourned for filing the reply of the preliminary objections for 22.4.1995. 4. On 22.4.1995, the counsel for the petitioner was informed by the reader of the court that the case has been transferred to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate Shahpura and the parties have been directed to appear in the said court on 3.5.1995. 5. The petitioner has challenged the order of transfer passed on 22.4.1995 in this revision petition. 6. I have heard Mr. RN. Agrawal, learned counsel for the, petitioner and Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned counsel for the non-petitioner and carefully peruse the impugned order. 7. Before commenting upon the said order, it is necessary to examine Ruiz 89 of the Rules of 1994, which reads as under : "89. 6. I have heard Mr. RN. Agrawal, learned counsel for the, petitioner and Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned counsel for the non-petitioner and carefully peruse the impugned order. 7. Before commenting upon the said order, it is necessary to examine Ruiz 89 of the Rules of 1994, which reads as under : "89. General power of transfer or withdrawal:- (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, or of his own motion, without such notice, the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the place or headquarters of the Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, as the case may be, is situated, may at any stage of the proceedings withdraw any petition pending in the court of any Judge Sub-ordinate to him; and (i) try or dispose of the same, or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to the court of any other Judge within his jurisdiction, or (iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any petition has been withdrawn or transferred under sub-rule (1) the Court which thereafter tries such petition may subject to any special directions contained in the order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was withdrawn or transferred. 8. A perusal of Rule 89 of the Rules of 1994 goes to show that the District Judge may transfer the election petition (i) on the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, (ii) of his own motion, without such notice. 9. In this case, by the impugned order the petition has been transferred in the presence of the counsel. There are two parts of the impugned order. First part of the, order bearing seal of the District Judge only. But it does not bear the signatures of the District Judge. In the second part it has been mentioned that "the counsel for the non-petitioner raised an objection and contended that the preliminary objections be decided by this court but the counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case has already been transferred, the application pertaining to preliminary objections shall be heard by the transferee court." 10. In the second part it has been mentioned that "the counsel for the non-petitioner raised an objection and contended that the preliminary objections be decided by this court but the counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case has already been transferred, the application pertaining to preliminary objections shall be heard by the transferee court." 10. In the first part of the order, presence of both the counsel has been registered and the election petition has been transferred on the ground that many .sessions cases and old civil cases are pending for hearing in the court as such the election petition has been transferred for hearing to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Shahpura and the parties are directed to appear in the said court on 3.5.1996. After this order seal of the District Judge has been put in, but the Presiding Officer did not sign over it. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 22.4.1995 the petitioner's counsel including Shri Mahendra Goyal, Advocate appeared in the court of District Judge before 8.00 a.m. and came to know that the case was not called up. At about 8.15 a.m. counsel for the non-petitioner appeared before the trial court and made a verbal statement that the reply to the preliminary objection was ready and case may be taken up a little later. At about 9.00 a.m. the reader of the court informed the counsel for the petitioner that the case has been transferred to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Shahpura and the parties have been directed to appear in the said court on 3.5.1995. Mr. RN. Agrawal, learned counsel or the petitioner vehemently contended that the first part of the impugned order was never written in his presence. When the counsel came to know about this fact he made verbal statement before the Presiding Officer that the order was dictated by the reader on the order sheet as such the said order was without jurisdiction and it contains the misstatement of fact and without the signatures of the trial judge, the order cannot be termed as legal order. Thereafter the counsel for the non-petitioner has raised objection that as the case was transferred to the transferee court, further proceedings may be taken up by the transferee court only. 12. Mr. Thereafter the counsel for the non-petitioner has raised objection that as the case was transferred to the transferee court, further proceedings may be taken up by the transferee court only. 12. Mr. P.N. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that according to proviso appended to section 43 of the Act of 1994, the District Judge ought to have recorded reasons in writing before transferring the said case and in the absence of reasons the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 13. In order to solve the controversy raised before me it is also necessary to refer section 43 of the Act of 1994, which reads as under : "43. Determination of dispute as to elections:- (I) An election under this Act or the rules made thereunder may be called in question by any candidate at such election by presenting in the prescribed manner to the District Judge having jurisdiction a petition in this behalf on the prescribed grounds and within the prescribed period : Provided that an election petition presented as aforesaid may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, be transferred by the District Judge for hearing and disposal to a Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) subordinate to him. (Emphasis supplied) (2) A petition presented under sub-section (1) shall be heard and disposed of in the prescribed manner and the decision of the Judge thereon shall be final." The proviso appended to section .43(1) of the Act goes to show that election petition presented in accordance with subsection (1) of section 43 of the Act may for the reasons to be recorded in writing be transferred by the District Judge for hearing and disposal to a Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) subordinate to him. 14. Now we have to examine as to whether the impugned order comes under the purview of proviso appended to section 43 of the Act as well as under Rule 89 of the Rules of 1994. The District Judge has transferred the election petition on the ground that many sessions cases and old civil cases are pending in the court therefore the election petition be transferred to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Shahpura. It appears that the District Judge at the time of transfer of election petition did not read the provisions contained in section 43 of the Act of 199. It appears that the District Judge at the time of transfer of election petition did not read the provisions contained in section 43 of the Act of 199. The case has been transferred to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate Shahpura, whereas according to the proviso appended to section 43 of the Act of 1994, the case can only be transferred to the Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). The Civil Judge (Junior Division) has not been given authority to hear the election petition and according to proviso appended to section 43 of the Act of 1994 only the Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) has jurisdiction to hear such matters. As such impugned order is against the provisions of section 43 of the Act of 1994. 15. There is one more aspect of the case and i.e. unsigned part of the order. I fail to understand as to why the first part of the order was not signed by the District Judge. When the said order was passed by the District Judge, he ought to have signed over it. A complete reading of the order goes to show that it was passed in two stages and I treat the non-sign part of the order as an irregularity only and it cannot be said that it was passed without any application of mind. 16. Now I take up the interpretation of Rule 89 of the Rules of 1994. It is an admitted position that none of the parties have submitted application for transfer of the said case, No doubt that the District Judge could have transferred it on his own motion without notice to the parties. But when parties were present in the court it was the duty of the District Judge to hear the parties and after affording an opportunity of hearing a judicial order could have been passed. Simply because sessions cases and old civil cases are pending before the District Judge the election petition could not have been transferred. The election matters ought to have been given top priority by the District Judge as they are more experienced judicial officers in the Districts. 17. In the Constitution of Indian Part IX has been inserted by the Constitution (Seventy Third) Amendment Act, 1992. The election matters ought to have been given top priority by the District Judge as they are more experienced judicial officers in the Districts. 17. In the Constitution of Indian Part IX has been inserted by the Constitution (Seventy Third) Amendment Act, 1992. Article 243-0 of the Constitution of India reads as under : "243-O Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters:-Not with standing anything in this. Constitution : (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243 K, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the legislature of a State." 18. Rules of 1994 have been enacted in pursuance of Part IX in the Constitution of India and thereby Article 243- O(b) of Constitution of India has been inserted and looking to the importance of the election matters, the District Judges have been given jurisdiction to hear and decided the election matters relating to Panchayats. Under Article 329 of the Constitution of India election petitions related to House of Parliament or Legislature of a State, are heard by the High Court of Judicature and under Article 243-0 (b) election matters pertaining to Panchayats are to be heard by the District Judges subject to the provisions of Section 43 of the Act of 1994 and Rule 89 of the Rules of 1994. 19. Mr. J.P. Goyal, counsel for the non-petitioner contended that the word `hearing' is not defined in the statutes, hence the interpretation of word `hearing' given in other Acts cannot be taken into consideration. 20. In Regional Executive, Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Fund Board v. M/s.'Fancy Food and another ( AIR 1995 SC 1620 ), it has been observed that when word not defined in stature, its meaning has to be gathered from the context in which it has been used. 21. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that District Judge has rightly transferred the election petition under the powers of Rule 89 of the Rules of 1994 and it cannot be said that it would occasion failure of justice. 21. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that District Judge has rightly transferred the election petition under the powers of Rule 89 of the Rules of 1994 and it cannot be said that it would occasion failure of justice. The petitioner and non-petitioner both are female and residing in Shahpura where the case has been transferred so no prejudice would be caused to either :of the parties. The impugned order has been passed in the interest of justice and the court below has not committed any jurisdictional error. 22. In my view the District Judge has committed illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in it by transferring the case to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial magistrate Shahpura, as Civil Judge (Junior Division) has no jurisdiction to hear the election matters according to proviso appended to section 43 of the Act of 1994 as already observed by me herein above that the Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) has jurisdiction to hear the election matters. More so it will be necessary to observe that the election matters should be given top priority by the District Judges and such matters ought not to have been transferred mechanically. If the sessions case and old civil cases are pending in the District Courts it does not mean that election matters be heard and decided by the subordinate courts, who are also overburdened with the cases. For the purposes of interpretation of Rules of 1994 as well as Act of 1994, the District Judges are competent judicial officers to decide such matters and they should not shirk their responsibility by transferring the election matters mechanically. 23. What has shocked judicial conscience all the more is the carefree approach of the District.Judge which can be summed up as under : (i) He did not care to sign the impugned order properly. (ii) He' had transferred the case to a court which had no jurisdiction to hear it. (iii) He did not care to read the provisions contained in the proviso of Section 43 of the Act. (iv) Instead of complying the impugned order, he had sent the case to a different court i.e. Civil Judge cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Shahpura, who is presently trying it without any legal order of the District Judge. (iii) He did not care to read the provisions contained in the proviso of Section 43 of the Act. (iv) Instead of complying the impugned order, he had sent the case to a different court i.e. Civil Judge cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Shahpura, who is presently trying it without any legal order of the District Judge. I express my strong disapproval of the approach of the District Judge in handling the election petition in a casual manner. 24. For all the foregoing reasons I am satisfied that the impugned order dated 22.4.1995 is illegal and unsustainable and is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules mentioned hereinabove. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed and impugned order, is quashed. I direct that election petition No. 31 of 1995 be heard and decided by the District Judge Jaipur District. The record of the case be sent forthwith to the court of the District Judge Jaipur District and parties are directed to appear in the said court on 1.11.1996. No costs.Revision Allowed. *******