JUDGMENT - Y.S. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---In these five writ petitions, a common question of law is involved and hence, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2.Writ Petition No. 986 of 1995 was admitted by this Court on 7th of March 1995 and interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (b) thereof was granted. By the said interim relief, further proceedings in Municipal Appeals before the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, were stayed. Placing reliance on admission of this petition, number of other matters involving similar question of law were admitted and interim reliefs were granted in those matters. Those matters were mentioned before us on 6th October, 1998 for being listed in view of the observations made by the learned Single Judge (S.H. Kapadia, J.) in the order dated 14th of June 1996. This order was passed by Justice Kapadia while dealing with Civil Application No. 1455 of 1996. The said order reads as follows :-- "In the present writ petition a very important question of law arises, whether Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, has jurisdiction to decide M.A. and Election petition under B.P.M. Corporation Act. This writ petition was admitted by Dhanuka, J., on 7-3-1995. It involves stay of M.A. in tax matters. Officer is directed to place this matter before the Division Bench, so that the matter can be disposed of by Division Bench." As a result of the said order, Writ Petition No. 3406 of 1996 was placed before us when we directed that all connected matters would be heard together. 3.We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as also for the respondents in all the matters. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has mainly submitted that the "Judge", Small Cause Court, Pune, functions as "persona designata" while hearing Municipal Appeals pertaining to tax matters and election petitions. Since the word "Judge" is referred to as "persona designata", it is not permissible for the Additional Judge of Court of Small Causes to deal with the Municipal appeals and Election petitions. The issue, therefore which falls for consideration, is whether reference to the word "Judge" under section 16(3) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, is a reference to a "Judge" as "persona designata" or in his capacity as member of a class of Judges of the Court of Small Causes including Additional Judges thereof. The issue, therefore which falls for consideration, is whether reference to the word "Judge" under section 16(3) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, is a reference to a "Judge" as "persona designata" or in his capacity as member of a class of Judges of the Court of Small Causes including Additional Judges thereof. Sub-section (3) of section 16 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, reads as under :-- "(3) The Judge shall decide the applications made under sub-section (1) or (2) after holding an inquiry in the manner provided by or under this Act." 4.It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of (Nagnath Revansidhappa Cholkhane v. Osmansaheb Mohammedsaheb Pangaonkar)1, reported in 1977 U.C.R.(Bom.) 342 : 1977 Maharashtra Law Journal 491, that reference to the word "Judge" in the context, has to be interpreted as the Judge discharging functions as persona designata and, therefore, it is not open for him to assign the matter to Additional Judge and it is equally not open to the Additional Judge of Court of Small Causes to hear the matter. 5.The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand have subby mitted that the word "Judge" is defined under the Act and we must be guided the definition as given in the concerned Statute and it is not permissible to import the definition from other Statutes. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that definition of "Judge" as given in the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, clearly eliminates the concept of the word "Judge" as referred to under section 16(3) as persona designata and if that intention is clearly spelt out, importing definition given to the word "Judge" in the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as is sought to be done by Mr. Apte, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, is totally unjustified. 6.Attempt of Mr. Apte, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, to rely upon the definition of "Judge" and to distinguish the same from "Additional Judge", as defined under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, cannot be appreciated. Such importing of definition and inferential interpretation of the word "Judge" cannot be resorted to. The word has to be interpreted in the reference and context to the Act in which it appears. Such importing of definition and inferential interpretation of the word "Judge" cannot be resorted to. The word has to be interpreted in the reference and context to the Act in which it appears. The word "Judge" is defined under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and as stated earlier, it lacks in emphasising that the reference is as persona designata. It is, therefore, futile to refer to the definitions of "Judge" and "Additional Judge" under the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. 7.Section 2(29) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, defines the word "Judge" and it reads as follows :-- "(29) "the Judge" means in the City of [Pune] the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, and in any other City the Civil Judges (Senior Division) having jurisdiction in the City." It is relevant to bear in mind the guideline laid down by the Supreme Court while considering the issue as to whether an authority is a persona designata or otherwise. This guideline has been laid down in the case of (Central Talkies Ltd., Kanpur v. Dwarka Prasad)2, reported in A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 606 and it reads as follows :-- "A 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." This guideline is based on the definition of persona designata as found in the 4th Edition of Law Dictionary by P.G. Osborn. It, therefore, becomes apparent that when a person is referred to, maintaining his individuality in the office as distinguished from general class, he should be styled as persona designata. Now, in this context, let us examine the definition of the word "Judge" as appearing in section 2(29). Two authorities are included in the said definition. For City of Pune, the Judge of Court of Small Causes and in any other City, the Civil Judge (Senior Division) having jurisdiction in the City. There is nothing that we can read in this definition to specify the individuality of an office or a person manning such post. Whenever an authority is referred to as persona designata, the individuality of that office is specifically emphasized and maintained. To give a few instances, we can refer to the decisions cited by Mr. Apte. There is nothing that we can read in this definition to specify the individuality of an office or a person manning such post. Whenever an authority is referred to as persona designata, the individuality of that office is specifically emphasized and maintained. To give a few instances, we can refer to the decisions cited by Mr. Apte. While dealing with the provisions of Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, the Division Bench was concerned with section 25 thereof containing a provision of an appeal. Section 25, inter alia, provided that an appeal from an order made by the Controller, shall lie to the District Judge. When reference is made to the District Judge, it is obvious that it is made as an authority individually identifiable and in that context, the Division Bench has held that reference to the District Judge would be as persona designata. Similarly, reference could be made to few other provisions in Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Section 9 of the said Act specifically refers that "An appeal shall lie from every order of the estate officer made in respect of any public premises under [section 5 or section 5-B] [or section 5-C] or section 7 to an appellate officer who shall be the District Judge of the district in which the public premises are situate or such other judicial officer in that district of not less than ten years standing as the District Judge may designate in this behalf. "Sub-section (6) of section 9, while dealing with the presidency-town, prescribes as follows :-- "(6) For the purposes of this section, a presidency-town shall be deemed to be a district and the Chief Judge or the principal Judge of the City Civil Court therein shall be deemed to be the District Judge of the district." When an appeal is provided against an order, it is specifically referred that it should be heard by the "Principal Judge". Under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, filing and hearing of Election petitions is as per the provisions of section 33 and it specifically refers to filing of Election petitions and disposal thereof by "Chief Judge of Small Cause Court". Under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, filing and hearing of Election petitions is as per the provisions of section 33 and it specifically refers to filing of Election petitions and disposal thereof by "Chief Judge of Small Cause Court". Similarly, an appeal in a tax matter is provided under section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and it specifically refers that appeals against any rateable value or tax fixed or charged under this Act shall be heard and determined by the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, while providing for an appeal relating to eviction of persons regulated by Chapter V-A, section 105-F specifically states as under :-- "105-F. An appeal shall lie from every order of the Commissioner, made in respect of any Corporation premises, under section 105-B or section 105-C, to an appellate officer who shall be the principal Judge of the City Civil Court of Bombay or such other judicial officer in Greater Bombay of less than ten years standing, as the principal Judge may designate in this behalf." In all the abovereferred clauses, while in reference individuality is maintained, courts have interpreted such reference to be as persona designata. In proceedings for eviction under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, when an appeal is provided under section 105, it is referred to the "Principal Judge" of the City Civil Court. Even under the provisions of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, when the Election petitions were to be filed, the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, Bombay, was required to entertain these petitions and whenever such a reference is made to an individual Designated Officer, the courts have always interpreted to mean as reference to persona designata. In the case of reference to the Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, as appearing in the provisions of City of Bombay Municipal Act, this Court in the case of (R.S. Navalkar v. Mrs. Sarojini Naidu)3, reported in 1923(25) Bom.L.R. 463 has held such reference to be a persona designata. In the instant case, the definition with which we are concerned, makes a reference to a Judge for the City of Pune and a Civil Judge, Senior Division having jurisdiction in any other City. This is obviously a reference to a person ascertained as a member of a class of Judges. Same is the case in respect of the reference to Civil Judge, Senior Division. This is obviously a reference to a person ascertained as a member of a class of Judges. Same is the case in respect of the reference to Civil Judge, Senior Division. The individuality of a person manning the office is conspicuously absent. If that be so, it is not possible to interpret and hold that reference to the word "Judge" is a persona designata. In this view of the matter, we see nothing wrong in the view taken by the learned trial Judge in holding that the Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, is not a persona designata for the purpose of deciding Municipal Appeals and Election Petitions under the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and the Additional Judge of Court of Small Causes, Pune, has jurisdiction to try such Appeals and Petitions. 8.One more indication must be referred to. An appeal against the decision is provided under section 411 and the forum as described is District Court. It is apparent and needs no emphasis that the Court is different than the Judge as held by the Supreme Court in the case of (Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India others)4, reported in 1994(6) S.C.C. 731 . If the proceedings at the trial stage were to be intended before the persona designata, the provision of Appeal would have been worded in a different fashion. When an appeal lies to the Court, it is obviously indicated that the same shall be governed and conducted by the procedure applicable to the ordinary civil proceedings. If that be so, a person who had rendered the impugned decision, has to be a person amenable to ordinary civil jurisdiction. Further, the trial Court has rightly relied upon section 403(4)(a) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, which pertains to the procedure in election inquiries and provides "All applications received under section 16 in which the validity of the election of Councillors elected to represent the same ward is in question shall be heard by the same Judge". This reveals the legislative intent that applications can be entertained and tried by all the Judges of the Small Causes Court. However, in case of validity of election of Councillors elected to represent the same ward, it shall be heard by the same Judge. This reveals the legislative intent that applications can be entertained and tried by all the Judges of the Small Causes Court. However, in case of validity of election of Councillors elected to represent the same ward, it shall be heard by the same Judge. Therefore the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that "Judge" means only Chief or Principal Judge of the Small Causes Court is without any substance. The intention, therefore, is clear and it is to eliminate his status as persona designata. We see no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the learned trial Judge in the order impugned in these petitions. 9.Since this is the only issue involved in these petitions, we see no purpose in answering the question and sending the matters back to the learned Single Judge. 10.Hence, by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we are disposing of these petitions. Rule in each petition is discharged accordingly. 11.Interim orders stand vacated. 12.Writ to go down forthwith. Petition dismissed. *****