JUDGMENT 1. - This case has come up before me as assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised the question of maintainability of the election petition by raising preliminary objections that the presentation of this Election Petition before the Addl. Registrar (Admn.), Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur, is illegal as the Hon'ble C.J. has not assigned the election petition in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 80-A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). 3. It is alleged that the petition was placed before Hon'ble the C.J. on 13th January, 1994 whereas the period of limitation expired on 12th January, 1994, and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel further submits that listing of the case before Hon'ble G.S. Singhvi, J. as he then was, on 24th January, 1994, was absolutely illegal and thereafter, on his transfer before Hon'ble Anshuman Singh, J., who lateron released the petition, was also illegal. Learned counsel also submits that the extra-sets of the election petition have not been accompanied with the election petition, as such this petition is also liable to be dismissed only on this count. The other preliminary objections are that Rule 6 of the Rules of 1967, has also not been complied with and the petition bears no seal impression of Addl. Registrar (Admn.). 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the cases rendered in the case of N.P. Mannuswami v. R.O. Namakkal, AIR 1952 S.C. 64 , Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 S.C. 851 , Hukum Dev Narayan v. Lalit Narayan, AIR 1974 S.C. 480 , Satya Naraya v. Dhuja Ram Khoiwala, AIR 1974 S.C. 185 , Ramdhan v. Bhanwar Lal, AIR 1985 (Raj.) (FB), 185 , Nawab Khan v. Vishwanath, AIR 1993 (All) 104 and Dr. Smt. Shipra v. Shanti Lal, 1996(3) (Supreme) 694 , 1996(5) SCC 181 . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed reply to the preliminary objections and denied the contents made therein stating that the respondents have neither verified nor given any affidavit in support of these preliminary objections. Smt. Shipra v. Shanti Lal, 1996(3) (Supreme) 694 , 1996(5) SCC 181 . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed reply to the preliminary objections and denied the contents made therein stating that the respondents have neither verified nor given any affidavit in support of these preliminary objections. It is also submitted that the extra copies for the each respondent were supplied, which is apparent from the fact that no defect was pointed out by the office at the time of scrutiny, as such the presumption cannot be rebutted in the absence of any material which has not been placed/pleaded. It is submitted that the presentation of the election petition is perfectly legal and according to the Rules. It has also been stated that the election was held on 28th November, 1993 and though the result of the election was declared on 28th November, 1993 but on account of certain complaints, the clearance to R.O. from Central Observer for announcing the result was given on 29th November. 1993 at 12.00 p.m. only, whereas the election petition was presented on 10th January, 1994, before the date of expiry of limitation of 45 days, which in the present case expired on 13th January, 1994. Learned counsel submits that the objections are made with a view to delay the decision and prays that the objections be over-ruled and be dismissed with costs. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not disputed the legal position in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondents but submits that they are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. It is further submitted that the issue raised by the respondents have already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Reference in the Election Petition No. 15/1994 decided on 8th November, 1995 (Shivnarayan Verma's case). 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the preliminary objections at length. 8. The relevant Sections 80-A, 81, 86(2), which are necessary to decide the controversy, read as under : "S. 80-A. "High Court to try Election Petition : (1) The Court having jurisdiction to try an election petition shall be the High Court; (2) Such jurisdiction shall be exercised ordinarily by a Single Judge of the High Court and the Chief Justice shall, from time to time, assign one or more Judges for that purpose. Provided that where the High Court consists only of one Judge, he shall try election petitions presented to that Court. (3) The High Court in its discretion may, in the interest of justice or convenience try an election petition, wholly or partly, at a place other than the place of seat of the High Court." "S. 81 (1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of S. 100 and S. 101 to the (High Court) by any candidate at such election or any election (within forty five days from but not either than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the latest of those two dates. Explanation-In the sub-section "elector" means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not." S. 86(2) : "As soon as may be after election petition has been presented to the High Court, it shall be xxxxx referred to the Judge or one of the Judges who has or have been assigned by the Chief Justice for the trial if election petition under Sub-section (2) of S. 80-A." 9. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Sections shows that the High Court shall have the jurisdiction to try the election petition, which will be assigned by C.J. to any Judge from time to time and after presentation of election petition the Judge/Judges who has or have been assigned the same by Hon'ble C.J. will hear it. 10. The law enunciated in the above referred cases, are not in dispute and, therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the above referred cases. However, each case depends on its own facts. 11. It is no doubt true, that as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, no election of members of Parliament or the State Legislature, shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in such a manner as may be provided by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature. 12. The election petition can be presented only to the High Court. Every State has a High Court consisting of Judge/Judges. 12. The election petition can be presented only to the High Court. Every State has a High Court consisting of Judge/Judges. The `High Court' means the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. The Rajasthan High Court has framed the rules and according to the Rules, the presentation work of every document is done before the Registrar or the officer authorised and after the presentation the work is assigned to the Judge, as per the roster given by the Hon'ble C.J. 13. In this regard, the Rajasthan High Court also framed Rules, known as Election Rules, by a notification dated 28th March, 1967 after insertion of S. 80-A of the Act on 14th December, 1966 as the Rules of 1966 in regard to the Election Rules, under the Representation of Peoples Act. 14. The Representation of Peoples Act, is a self contained Code and the remedy under Election Law can only be availed as per that Statute and the manner provided under the Rules. 15. It is also true that the Election Petition can be dismissed if it does not comply with the provisions of S. 81, 82 and 17 of the Act.15-A. In the case in hand, the main question which arises for consideration is as to whether the Hon'ble C.J. should assign the election petition to any of the Judge prior to the presentation of the election petition or not ? 16. Undoubtedly, S. 80-A of the Act precedes S. 81 providing for trial of election petition by a Judge/Judges who is/are assigned for trial by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The definition of the Judges, as given in Rule l(d), is in terms S. 80-A. The said rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under S. 46 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India, and all others powers enabling it on that behalf. The validity of the similar Rules was also challenged and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Revachand v. Anand Singh Kachhava, AIR 1964 RLW 529 , held them valid. Rule 4 of the said Election Petition, empowers the Registrar or any other officer, to receive the election petition with the approval of the Hon'ble C.J. Thus, the Addl. Rule 4 of the said Election Petition, empowers the Registrar or any other officer, to receive the election petition with the approval of the Hon'ble C.J. Thus, the Addl. Registrar (Admn.), Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur, was competent to receive the election petition, which has been approved by the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Shiv Narain v. Arjun Das, S.B. Election Petition No. 15 of 94. According to the said Rules, the presentation work of every document is done before the Registrar and after the presentation before the Registrar, the work is assigned by the Hon'ble C.J. In the case in hand, the presentation before the Addl. Registrar on 10th January, 1994, the election petition was placed before the Hon'ble C.J. and the Hon'ble C.J. assigned the election petition on 13th January, 1994 to a Judge of this Court having jurisdiction which according to me is according to rule and the provision of the Act. Thus, the Addl. Registrar (Admn.) RHCB, Jaipur was competent to receive the election petition and the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that before the presentation the Hon'ble C.J. should assign the election petition to a Judge of this Court, has no substance. Since S. 80-A(2) of the Act does not "confer jurisdiction to try the election petition, which only provides a procedure for exercise of such jurisdiction and the jurisdiction is to be conferred by Sub-section (1) of S. 80-A of the Act, upon the High Court and in view of this, to my mind S. 80A of the Act is mandatory only to the extent that a Judge of that High Court who has been assigned the petition, has the jurisdiction to hear the election petition. This, however, does not mean that the assignment is to be made only before' the presentation of the election petition, so also, merely because S. 80-A of the Act precedes S. 81 of the Act, it cannot be said that Hon'ble C.J. is not empowered to assign and refer the.election petition to a Judge of High Court having jurisdiction in terms of S. 80-A(2) and S. 80(2) of the Act after the presentation of the election. A reference can also be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Gopal v. Prakash Chand, AIR 1974 S.C. 209 . 17. A reference can also be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Gopal v. Prakash Chand, AIR 1974 S.C. 209 . 17. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is also not acceptable for the reason that as per practice Hon'ble C.J. assigns election petition after its presentation to Registry, which is duly authorised for the purpose and in current year 12 election petitions have been filed and assigned by Hon'ble C.J. to the Judge/Judges in the same manner which is according to rules. The argument of the petitioner that only after considering that how many election petitions are filed and how many Judges will be needed for the purpose, the Hon'ble C.J. can assign election petition accordingly to Judge/Judges, and in advance the Hon'ble C.J. cannot anticipate the required number of petitions, has some substance. 18. It is no doubt true that the exercise of jurisdiction cannot be a mere formality and can be exercised only by the Judge, to whom it is assigned having jurisdiction to decide the election petition and in the instant case, the Hon'ble Chief Justice, who is under a legal competence has assigned the case and once he has assigned the case, therefore, as stated, it cannot be said that it should only be assigned before the presentation in advance. 19. Moreover, the similar contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents has already been repelled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.N. Verma v. A.D. Madan, D.B. Reference, in Election petition No. 15 of 94. which has been followed by a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Harsh Jhamani v. K. Motwani, S.B. Election Petition No. 14 of 1994. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to differ with the view take by the Division Bench, so as to refer it to a larger Bench. 20. So far as the argument that it was not accompanied with the extra-sets is concerned, the same is not acceptable for the reason that the non-petitioner has no case nor he has pleaded that the respondents have not received the extra copies nor he has alleged that the extra copies were filed afterwards. 20. So far as the argument that it was not accompanied with the extra-sets is concerned, the same is not acceptable for the reason that the non-petitioner has no case nor he has pleaded that the respondents have not received the extra copies nor he has alleged that the extra copies were filed afterwards. More so, he himself has received the copies and further a perusal of the order-sheet reveals that at the time of scrutiny no defects were pointed out in this regard which shows that the election petition was accompanied with the extra copies for each respondent. 21. The arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents, with regard to not affixing the seal impression of Addl. Registrar, is of no avail in the absence of any such requirement under Rule 4, of the rules, and it cannot be said that it was not properly presented particularly when the same was presented by him before the Addl. Registrar and which is not in dispute. 22. It is pertinent to note that Mr. R.C. Joshi, Advocate, appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 22.2.94 and Shri P.N. Agrawal on 16.3.94 an 25.3.94 but never raised such objections in this regard till the decision of the application regarding service up to 5.4.1994. 23. In view of the facts and the reasons discussed above by me, the preliminary objections raised, stand dismissed. The case be listed on 12.2.1997 for filing written statement.Preliminary Objection Dismissed. *******