ORDER 1. By this revision petition, under section 26 of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, the applicant impugnes and challenges the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 10.9.97, passed by 4th Addl. District Judge, Sagar in Municipality Election Petition No. 22/95 (Surendra Kumar Lakhare v. Malik Singh Chawla and others) dismissing the applicant's election petition, filed under section 20 of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. 2. The undisputed facts are that election for the councillers were to be held on 27.11.94. The results were declared on 16.12.94. The petitioner and non-applicant No. 1 and 3 were contesting candidates to the office of the counciller from ward No.7, which was specially and specifically reserved for 'other backward classes' (hereinafter referred to as 'OBC'). The petitioner pleaded that he raised certain objections before the election officer that the respondent No. 1 was not belonging to OBC, but his objections were not considered and the form was illegally accepted. The petitioner, after losing the election filed an election petition under section 20 of the Act. The petitioner's main contention was that the respondent No.1 i.e. the returned candidate, was a 'Sikh', did not belong to OBC and was, therefore, not entitled to submit his candidature for contesting the elections. The respondent No.1, in his reply, contested the position factual and legal and submitted that he belongs to the OBC, the notification declaring the list of OBC did cover him and as such his nomination was rightly accepted. The petitioner apart from examining himself also examined the other witnesses and produced in evidence two documents. The respondent examined himself and produced certain documents in support of his contention. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court held that Notification Annexure P/1 was issued on 2nd April, 1997, therefore, it would not govern the right of the party and as the certificates submitted by respondent No.1 show that the respondent No.1 belonged to the OBC, the present petitioner was not entitled to any relief in the election petition. 3. Notification published in the Gazette (Extra Ordinary) dated 5th April, 1997 is in relation to the list of OBC. Paragraph 3 of the notification reads that the notification dated 26.12.84, bearing No. F. 8-5-XXV 84 including 'Sikh Harijan' at serial number 80 has been amended by notification dated 12.12.88, bearing No. 23-76-XXV-4 (5)-88 and the item No. 80, i.e. Sikh Harijan has been deleted. Paragraph 3 of the notification reads that the notification dated 26.12.84, bearing No. F. 8-5-XXV 84 including 'Sikh Harijan' at serial number 80 has been amended by notification dated 12.12.88, bearing No. 23-76-XXV-4 (5)-88 and the item No. 80, i.e. Sikh Harijan has been deleted. Learned trial Court has held that as the notification was issued in the year 1997, it would not affect the elections which were held in the year 1994. In the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration the said notification in its true perspective. A bare perusal of the notification would show that by publication in the year 1997, item No. 80 was not being deleted, but the notification was simply stating that the entry made in the year 1984 had already been deleted in the year 1988. If the notification of 1997 refers to some entry and its deletion in the year 1984 and 1988, it does not mean that the entry stood deleted from the year 1997. The facts would clearly show that the entry 'Sikh Harijan' stands deleted with effect from the year 1988 and as such, such 'Sikh Harijans' are not covered under the definition of 'OBC'. 4. The applicant has clearly proved that the list Ex. P/1 does not include 'Sikh Harijan' or 'Chawla' in the class known as 'OBC'. It was for the non-applicant No. 1 to prove before the Court that despite non-inclusion of 'Chawla' in the notification, he belongs to a class of 'OBC'. The basic burden was discharged by the petitioner and it was the duty of the non-applicant No.1 to discharge rest of the burden which stood shifted on his shoulders. The non-applicant No.1, in his statement recorded before the Election Tribunal has simply stated that he is a 'Sikh Harijan' and thereafter stated that he does not belong to any caste or he has no caste. It appears that he relied upon certain certificates issued by the Bank, Sarpanch, the Block Development Officer and also the M.L.A. A certificate issued by a competent authority, assuming the person issued the certificate was competent, must be in conformity with the notification. It is not that anybody can issue a certificate to somebody and certify that somebody belongs to 'OBC', 'SC' or 'ST'. It is not that anybody can issue a certificate to somebody and certify that somebody belongs to 'OBC', 'SC' or 'ST'. The certificates issued by the above referred persons clearly state that the non-applicant No.1 is a 'Sikh'; he is 'Chawla' by caste and he belongs to 'OBC'. It appears that the persons who issued the certificates did not care to see the 1988 notification. The Court below was not justified in holding that the non-applicant No. 1 has proved that he belongs to 'OBC' or the applicant has failed to prove that the non-applicant No.1 did not belong to 'OBC'. The findings recorded by the lower Tribunal deserve to and are accordingly set aside. It is held that the non-applicant No.1 was not 'OBC' nor was falling within the definition or class known as 'OBC'. Acceptance of his nomination by the Election Officer was contrary to law. On this short question, the election deserves to be set aside. 5. At this stage, Shri Jain, learned counsel for the non-applicant No.1 raises an objection referring to section 20 of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. According to him, an election petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in section 22 to the District Judge, where such election or nomination is held with the revenue district in which the Court of the District Judge is situate, and in any other case, to the Add!. District Judge having the permanent seat of his Court within the revenue district in which such election or nomination is held. According to the respondent there is a permanent seat of Addl. District Judge at Khurai, therefore, the election petition could not be filed before the District Judge, Sagar nor the District Judge, Sagar without having the competence to receive, transfer it for trial to the Addl. District Judge, Khurai. Placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the matter of Anup v. Baboolal and another ( 1979 JLJ 414 = 1979 MPLJ 487 ), it was contended that if the District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain election petition, then neither he can receive it nor after receiving the same can transfer it to the Add!. District Judge exercising jurisdiction under section 7 of M.P. Civil Courts Act. This question was raised before the trial Court. The trial Court had over-ruled the objection. District Judge exercising jurisdiction under section 7 of M.P. Civil Courts Act. This question was raised before the trial Court. The trial Court had over-ruled the objection. In the opinion of this Court, the objection has no merits. The trial Court has found that by a distribution memo, prepared under section 7 read with section 15 of M.P. Civil Courts Act, 1958, for the year 1994-95, the District Judge by his distribution memo, bearing No. AB/eAB-11-2/95 of December, 1994 categorically provided that all election petition under section 20 of M.P. Municipalities Act were required to be filed in his Court. If the District Judge has made a distribution memo providing that a particular work or nature of the petitions are to be presented in his Court, then a party is bound to observe the terms of the distribution memo because such a distribution memo has force of law. It cannot be disputed that if an election petition was required to be filed before the Addl. District Judge, Khurai, he would not have received the same because he had no jurisdiction under the distribution memo. In any case when the District Judge kept the exclusive jurisdiction with him for receiving the election petitions, then no fait can be found with the petitioner if, he relying upon the distribution memo filed the election petition before the District Judge. The objection raised by the non-applicant No.1 does not merit. So far as the judgment of Anup Pyare (supra) is concerned, it does not appear from that judgment that before this Court it was ever argued that whether there was any distribution memo or not. In the said matter, the Court proceeded on the premises that there was some Addl. District Judge who was competent to receive the election petition and despite the fact of his jurisdiction, the election petition was filed before the District Judge, who, after receiving the same, gave it back to the counsel for the election petitioner, with a direction to present the same before the Addl. District Judge. The facts are clearly distinguishable. In the present case, the election petition was filed in accordance with the distribution memo. 6. The Court below was not justified in holding that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference. The order passed by the learned Court below, dismissing the election petition is set aside. District Judge. The facts are clearly distinguishable. In the present case, the election petition was filed in accordance with the distribution memo. 6. The Court below was not justified in holding that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference. The order passed by the learned Court below, dismissing the election petition is set aside. The election of non-applicant No.1 is set aside on the ground that on the date of submission of the nomination form, he did not belong to the 'OBC' and on the date of the scrutiny, his form was wrongly accepted. 7. However, considering the totality of the circumstances, specially when the present petitioner or his witnesses have not stated even a single word that how the votes would have been distributed if the non-applicant No.1 was not a contesting candidates, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief under section 21 (1) (b) of the Act. 8. The revision petition and consequently the election petition is allowed. Parties are directed to bear their own cost throughout.