Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1340 (MP)

Rajendra Prasad v. Mahendra Singh Bargahi

2000-12-14

DIPAK MISRA, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2000
ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. Observing the apparent conflict in the decisions rendered in the cases of Ashok Barman vs. Sadhana w/o Pratiman Jain and another 1997(2) MPU 167 and Malik Singh Chawla vs. Surendra Kumar Lakhers and others AIR 1998 MP 321 and reading the said decisions in juxtaposition with the ratio decidendi of Anup Pyarelal vs. Baboolal Rambux and another 1979 MPLJ 487 a learned Single Judge thought it apposite to recommend the case for reference to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement. That is how the present civil revision has been placed before us. 2. Before we advert to the legal arena we think it appropriate to narrate the facts which have been uncurtained to give rise to this reference. The non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 filed an election petition No. 2/2000 before the learned Additional District Judge, Beohari under Section 20 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the applicant and non-applicants Nos. 4 to 17. It is pertinent to state here the election petition was presented before the said Additional District Judge on 24-1-2000 challenging the election of the applicant to the post of the President, Nagar Panchayat Beohari on certain grounds. Some interlocutory applications were filed by the non-applicants 1 to 3 and orders were passed thereon by the Election Tribunal. In the present revision the learned counsel has not assailed the orders passed on those interlocutory applications. The learned counsel for the applicant has confined the challenge to the order dated 3-5-2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge refusing to reject the election petition on the ground of maintainability. It is worth noting here that the revisionist invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending, inter alia, that under Section 20 of the Act the election petition could be presented only before the District Judge, Shahdol as Beohari is within the revenue district of Shahdol and the said revenue district has a permanent District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge considered the facts and relied upon the distribution memo passed by the learned District Judge, Shahdol dated 27-12-1999 whereby the learned District Judge has assigned the work of hearing of election petitions preferred under Section 20 of the Act to the learned Additional District Judge and accordingly negatived the prayer made by the petitioner. 3. The learned Additional District Judge considered the facts and relied upon the distribution memo passed by the learned District Judge, Shahdol dated 27-12-1999 whereby the learned District Judge has assigned the work of hearing of election petitions preferred under Section 20 of the Act to the learned Additional District Judge and accordingly negatived the prayer made by the petitioner. 3. Before the learned Single Judge it was contended that as per Section 20 of the Act the election petition could only have been entertained by the District Judge, Shahdol and not by the Additional District Judge, Beohari. To substantiate the said contention reliance was placed on the decision rendered in the cases of Ashok Barman (supra) as well as Anup Pyarelal (supra). Per contra, the learned counsel for the non-applicants had drawn inspiration from the decision rendered in the case of Malik Singh Chawla (supra) to contend that the Additional District Judge, Beohari could entertain the election petition. As has been indicated hereinabove noticing conflicting views the learned Single Judge thought it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. 4. We have heard Mr. R.P. Jain, and Mr. J.L. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. L.S. Baghel, learned Senior counsel for the non-applicants. 5. It is canvassed by Mr. Jain that Section 20 of the Act is mandatory and under the said provision an election petition is to be presented before the District Judge if the election is held within the revenue district in which the Court of the District Judge is situate. Learned counsel has submitted that in the case of Ashok Barman (supra) the learned Single Judge has categorically held that application has to be presented to the District Judge alone. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Shri Deo Parasnathji Mousuma Ghanshyam Budhu Singhai vs. Firm Kanhaiyalal Komalchand Godre, 1972 MPLJ 206 to buttress his point that the statutory powers cannot be assigned without statutory authority to do so and in this realm principles of strict construction has to be followed. 6. Resisting the aforesaid submissions Mr. Baghel, learned senior counsel contended that the decision rendered in the case of Ashok Barman (supra) does not lay down the correct law as that has not taken note of the provisions contained in Sections 7 and 15 of M.P. Civil Courts Act. 6. Resisting the aforesaid submissions Mr. Baghel, learned senior counsel contended that the decision rendered in the case of Ashok Barman (supra) does not lay down the correct law as that has not taken note of the provisions contained in Sections 7 and 15 of M.P. Civil Courts Act. It is urged by him that in the case of Anup Pyarelal (supra) the learned Single Judge was dealing with a different situation and hence, the ratio that flows therefrom is quite different. It is his further submission that the principles enunciated in the case of Babulal vs. Dattatraya and others 1971 MPU 765 by the Full Bench go a long way to pave the path in favour of the non-applicants and therefore, the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is not vulnerable. Mr. Baghel has also proponed that in the case of Malik Singh Chawla (supra) the learned Single Judge has noticed the provisions engrafted under the M.P. Civil Courts Act and analysed the concept of distribution memo in its proper perspective and, therefore, the said decision is in consonance with the law laid down in the case of Babulal (supra) and does not anyway run contrary to the ratio of Anup Pyarelal (supra). 7. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar it is apposite to refer to Section 20 of the Act which reads as under: "20. Election Petitions. -- (1) No election or nomination under this Act be called into question except by a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) Such petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 22. Election Petitions. -- (1) No election or nomination under this Act be called into question except by a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) Such petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 22. (a) by any candidate at such election or nomination; or (b)(i) In the case of an election of a Councillor, by any voter of the ward concerned; (ii) in the case of a nomination of Councillor, by any Councillor; (iii) in the case of election of President by any voter of the Municipal area; to the District Judge, where such election or nomination is held within the revenue district in which the Court of the District Judge is situate, and in any other case, to the Additional District Judge having the permanent seat of his Court within the revenue district in which such election or nomination is held and if there be more than one such Additional District Judge within the said revenue district, to such one of them as the District Judge may specify for the purpose (hereinafter such District Judge or Additional District Judge referred to as Judge). (3) No petition presented under Sub-section (2) shall be admitted unless, (i) it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the result of such election or nomination was notified in the Gazette; and (ii) it is accompanied by a Government Treasury receipt showing a deposit of two hundred rupees, in the case of election or nomination to Municipal Councils and one hundred rupees in the case of election or nomination to Nagar Panchayats. (4) A Petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition. (a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election or nomination, as the case may be, of all or any of the returned candidates is. void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected or nominated ail the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected or nominated ail the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. (5) An election petition shall (a) contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) set forth with sufficient particulars, the ground or grounds on which the election or nomination called in question; (c) be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), for the verification of pleadings." 8. On a fair reading of Sub-section (2)(b)(iii) it is clear as noon day that the three situations have been exposited therein. The first part of the said section lays down that if an election or nomination is held within the revenue district in which the Court of the District Judge is situate the election petition has to be presented to the District Judge. The second part stipulates that in any other case the petition is to be presented to the Additional District Judge having the permanent seat of his Court within the revenue district in which the election or nomination is held and the postulate in the third part is if there is more than one Additional District Judge within the said revenue district to such one of them as the District Judge may specify for the purpose. Twenty nine years back controversy arose whether the District Judge is the Persona designata or not and whether he can transfer an election petition to the Additional District Judge at the same place. While dealing with the aforesaid aspect the Full Bench in the case of Babulal (supra) expressed thus: "It is no doubt true that under Section 3 of the M.P. Civil Courts Act the Court of the District Judge and the Court of the Additional District Judge are different classes of Courts and an Additional District Judge is not an adjunct of the Court of the District Judge. But from the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act it would appear that the Additional District Judge is not allotted any function of his own. But from the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act it would appear that the Additional District Judge is not allotted any function of his own. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 provides that an Additional District Judge shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge, including the functions of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, which the District Judge may, by general or special order, assign to him and in the discharge of such functions he shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge. From this provision it is clear that an Additional District Judge is a delegate of the powers entrusted to him by the District Judge and in the case of such delegation he exercises all the powers of the District Judge, including those of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. It thus follows that any statutory jurisdiction conferred on the District Judge can also be exercised by the Additional District Judge if the same is entrusted to him by the District Judge. The expression "any of the functions of a District Judge, including the functions of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction" is wide enough to authorise the District Judge to delegate his own powers vested in him under the M.P. Municipalities Act. Even the Additional District Judge having his seat in the Revenue District is not authorised to exercise any powers on his own. He can exercise only those powers which are delegated to him by the District Judge. If the provisions of Section 20 of the M.P. Municipalities Act are considered in this background, it would be clear that the election petition is to be entertained by the District Judge or his delegate. This is made more clear in Section 20 under the provision which authorises the District Judge to nominate any one of the Additional District Judges for this purpose if in the same revenue District there are more than one Additional District Judge. This is made more clear in Section 20 under the provision which authorises the District Judge to nominate any one of the Additional District Judges for this purpose if in the same revenue District there are more than one Additional District Judge. In this view of the matter, it would follow that what Section 20 contemplates is that the election petition shall be entertained by the District Judge; and if the matter comes from another Revenue District, it shall be entertained by the delegate or the nominee of the District Judge and that this provision is made with a view to get the election petition disposed of within the geographical limits of a Revenue District, and nothing more......... " 9. The aforesaid enunciation of law makes it beemingly clear that powers of the District Judge, the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, can be exercised by the Additional District Judge if the same is entrusted to him by the District Judge. Their Lordships dealt with the third part of Section 20(b)(iii) and came to hold that the Additional District Judge could be delegated powers of a District Judge. At this juncture we may profitably refer to the decision of Anup Pyarelal (supra ) which was rendered by G.P. Singh, J. (as His Lordship then was). In the aforesaid case the learned Judge was dealing with the second part of the relevant portion which lays down that 'in any other case to the Additional Judge having the permanent seat of his Court within the revenue district in which the election or nomination is held'. While dealing with the said aspect the Court expressed the view as under: "The function which a District Judge can assign to Additional District Judge under Section 7, M.P. Civil Courts Act must be those which he himself can discharge. When a District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain as election petition, the trial of the petition is not a function which he can assign to the Additional District Judge. There can therefore, be no transfer of an election petition under Section 7, M.P. Civil Courts Act by the District Judge to the Additional District Judge. When a District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain as election petition, the trial of the petition is not a function which he can assign to the Additional District Judge. There can therefore, be no transfer of an election petition under Section 7, M.P. Civil Courts Act by the District Judge to the Additional District Judge. The defect in jurisdiction cannot be cured by transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure even when the transferee Court is competent to try the proceeding." It is relevant to note here that in the aforesaid case the petition was filed challenging the election to Sehore Municipality but the election petition was presented before the District Judge, Bhopal situate in Bhopal revenue district and not in Sehore revenue district. In this context the learned Judge held that the Additional District Judge and not District Judge, Bhopal had jurisdiction to entertain the election petition. Thus it is crystal clear that the learned Judge came to hold that the District Judge, Bhopal lacked inherent jurisdiction. At this juncture we may proceed to refer to the case of Ashok Barman (supra) wherein the learned Single Judge after scrutinising the provisions enumerated under Section 20 of the Act ruled thus: "If the provisions of Section 20 of the M.P. Municipalities Act are considered in this background, it would be clear that the election petition is to be entertained by the District Judge or his delegate. This is made more clear in Section 20 under the provision which authorises the District Judge to nominate any of the Additional District Judges for this purpose if in the same Revenue District there are more than one Additional District Judge. In this view of the matter, it would follow that what Section 20 contemplates is that the election shall be entertained by the District Judge; and if the matter comes from another Revenue District, it shall be entertained by the delegate or the nominee of the District Judge and that this provision is made with a view to get the election petition disposed of within the geographical limits of a Revenue District, and nothing more." 10. On a reading of the aforesaid decision it is perceptible, that an opinion has been expressed that in case any election or selection is held within the revenue district, the election petition has to be filed before the District Judge alone, (emphasis supplied). On a reading of the aforesaid decision it is perceptible, that an opinion has been expressed that in case any election or selection is held within the revenue district, the election petition has to be filed before the District Judge alone, (emphasis supplied). The question that falls for consideration whether the District Judge alone has the jurisdiction or an Additional District Judge of the same revenue district who has been conferred power by the District Judge in exercise of authority under the provisions of M.P. Civil Courts Act has also the jurisdiction to entertain an election petition. In this context we would profitably refer to Sections 7 and 15 of the M.P. Civil Courts Act. They read as under: "7. Principal Civil Courts of original jurisdiction. --(1) The Court of the District Judge shall be the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the civil district. (2) An Additional Judge to the Court of a District Judge an Additional District Judge and an Additional Judge to the Court of an Additional District Judge shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge, including the functions of Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which the District Judge may, by general or special order, assign to him and in the discharge of such functions he shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge. 15. Power to distribute business. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (V of 1908) or the law relating to Courts of Small Causes, for the time being in force in any area, or in any other provisions contained in this Act, the District Judge, may, by order in writing direct that any civil business cognizable by his Court or by other civil courts established under Section 5, in his civil district, shall be distributed amongst himself and Additional Judges, if any, of his Court, as also amongst other Courts, under his control and amongst Additional Judges of such other courts 'inter se' in such manner, as he deems fit: Provided that, except insofar as it may affect the exclusive jurisdiction of a court of Small Causes or of a court invested with the jurisdiction of a court of Small Causes, a direction given under this section shall not empower any court to exercise powers or deal with business beyond the limits of its pecuniary and notified territorial jurisdiction. (2) any judicial act in any suit, appeal or proceeding, instituted in a Court of competent jurisdiction, shall not be invalid only by reason of the fact that such institution was not in accordance with the order of distribution of business referred to in Sub-section (1). (3) Whenever it appears to any Court, as is referred to in Sub-section (2) that institution of any suit, appeal or proceeding, pending before it, was not in conformity with the order of distribution of business made under Sub-section (1), it shall submit the record of such suit, appeal or proceeding, as the case may be, to the District Judge for appropriate orders, and the District Judge in relation thereto may pass orders either transferring the concerned record to proper Court as per order of distribution of business or otherwise to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. (4) In distribution of civil business under Sub-section (1) the District Judge shall be guided by such principles as the High Court may, by rules, prescribe." 11. On a purposeful reading of the aforesaid provisions it becomes luminously clear that the District Judge by order in writing can direct that any civil business cognizable by his Court can be distributed among himself and Additional Judges. The said provision has to be harmoniously read with the provision of Section 20 of the Act. We are conscious Section 20 of the Act begins as under:-- "No election or nomination under this Act be called into question except by a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Section." But the impact and effect of aforesaid provision have to be appreciated in proper perspective and in its contextual command. Submission of Mr. Jain is that the presentation has to be made in accordance with the mandate of this section and the section commands that it has to be presented before the District Judge. Though the aforesaid argument in a first flush looks quite attractive but when it is scrutinised in proper perspective keeping in view the provisions of M.P. Civil Courts Act it pales into insignificance. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the District Judge of the revenue District has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the election case. Though the aforesaid argument in a first flush looks quite attractive but when it is scrutinised in proper perspective keeping in view the provisions of M.P. Civil Courts Act it pales into insignificance. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the District Judge of the revenue District has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the election case. In the case of Anup Pyarelal (supra) the District Judge lacked inherent jurisdiction and, therefore, the Court held that shelter could not be taken under the provisions of M.P. Civil Courts Act or under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At this juncture we may profitably refer to paragraph 12 of Babulal (supra) wherein the Full Bench expressed thus: "The other limb of argument of Shri Dabir was that the election proceedings are not Common Law rights but they owe their existence to statutes and as such, the ordinary rules of procedure of the Court to which the matter of deciding the dispute is entrusted cannot be invoked, and hence the District Judge had no right to transfer the case to the Additional District Judge. It is no doubt true that the right to stand for election or to elect is not a Common Law right and is a statutory right. Even so, that becomes a civil right as soon as it is conferred by the statute, and once the disposal of the dispute is entrusted to a Civil Court, the procedure of that Court must apply unless it is prohibited by the statute itself. It may be noted that there is no such direct prohibition under the M.P. Municipalities Act. No such prohibition can be inferred from the provisions of Section 20 of the Act or the Rules made thereunder as indicated already." 12. On a reading of the aforesaid passage it is quite vivid that a civil right is to be adjudicated and, therefore, the District Judge has the competency to assign his powers to an Additional District Judge to entertain an election petition. This is permissible for the simple reason that the District Judge or an Additional District Judge is not a persona designata. But we may hasten to add that this assignment or transfer is only permissible as far as the first part is concerned. This is permissible for the simple reason that the District Judge or an Additional District Judge is not a persona designata. But we may hasten to add that this assignment or transfer is only permissible as far as the first part is concerned. In respect of second part the District Judge cannot assign his powers to an Additional District Judge who has the permanent seat of his Court within the revenue district in which the election or nomination is held. Scrutinised from the aforesaid angles, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the view taken in the case of Ashok Barman (supra) that the petition challenging the election of selection is to be filed within the revenue district in which the Court of District Judge is situate and it has to be filed before the District Judge alone. At this juncture we may usefully refer to a decision rendered in the case of Rajkumar Shiv hare vs. Anand Kumar Tiwari and others 2000(3) MPLJ 391 wherein while dealing with M.P. Panchayat (Elections Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 and the M.P. Land Revenue Code it has been held as under: ''Under Section 122(1 )(ii) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, an election petition in case of Janpad Panchayat is to be presented before the Collector. Thus, the Collector has been conferred with the power to decide an election petition under an enactment. In view of Section 17(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, an Additional Collector cannot only exercise such powers and discharge such duties conferred on the Collector by or under the Code, but he can also exercise the power of the Collector under any other enactment, in case, Collector of the District by his Order in writing directs him to do so. Therefore, the Additional Collector has jurisdiction to hear the election petition in case it is transferred to him. Use of the expression 'specified officer' in Rule 11 of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, cannot be construed to mean Collector only. The Rule governs enquiry of all election petitions questioning election to Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat. Hence the expression 'specified officer' has been incorporated. Use of the expression 'specified officer' in Rule 11 of the M.P. Panchayats (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, cannot be construed to mean Collector only. The Rule governs enquiry of all election petitions questioning election to Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat. Hence the expression 'specified officer' has been incorporated. From the scheme of the Act and the M.P. Land Revenue Code, the Additional Collector shall be deemed to be a specified Officer in case election petition is transferred to him by the Collector exercising his power under Section 17(2) of the Code." In this context we may usefully refer to a decision rendered in the case of Koushal Prasad Kashyap vs. State of M.P. and others 1999 (1) MPLJ 455 wherein it has been held as under: "The State Government delegated the power of confirmation of the suspension of Sarpanch under Section 39(2) of M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam by notification under Section 93 to the 'Collector'. The delegation is to the holder of the office of the Collector. The Collector is an holder of an office under the M.P. Land Revenue Code and therefore, recourse can be taken to the provisions of the Code. Section 16 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code contains powers to appoint Collector. Section 17 of the Code provides appointment of 'Additional Collectors' and Sub-section (2) thereof provides that 'Additional Collectors' shall exercise such powers, and discharge such duties conferred and imposed on a 'Collector' by or under this Code or under any other enactment for the time being in force. Sub-section (3) provides that while exercising powers under the Code or any other enactment the 'Additional Collector' shall be deemed to be Collector. In the notification of delegation the State Government has delegated the power to the 'Collector' and the word 'Collector' has to be understood from the provisions of the Code. In relation to provision of the Code and also in relation of any other enactment 'Collector' would include 'Additional Collector' as provided in Section 17(2), (3) of the Code. It cannot, therefore, be said that under the notification of delegation the Collector has made any further delegation in favour of Additional Collector. Under the notification of delegation itself, the word 'Collector' would include 'Additional Collector' in accordance with the work distribution memo, issued under section 17 of the Code". (quoted from the placitum) 13. It cannot, therefore, be said that under the notification of delegation the Collector has made any further delegation in favour of Additional Collector. Under the notification of delegation itself, the word 'Collector' would include 'Additional Collector' in accordance with the work distribution memo, issued under section 17 of the Code". (quoted from the placitum) 13. We have referred to the aforesaid decisions to draw inspiration that jurisdiction can be conferred for adjudication of an election dispute if the statute does not envisage that it has to be adjudicated by a persona designata. 14. Now we shall proceed to deal with the law laid down in the case of Malik Singh Chawla (supra). Mr. Baghel learned Senior Counsel though tried his level best to support the decision in entirety but in our considered opinion the view expressed therein is not wholly correct. To appreciate the scenario we would like to quote the relevant portion: "It is not in dispute before me that in the Distribution Memo made by the learned District Judge, he clearly stated that the election petitions under M.P. Municipalities Act are required to be submitted to his Court. It cannot be disputed that the Distribution Memo has force of law. If the Distribution Memo samples a litigant to institute proceedings in a particular Court that too under an order which has the force of law, then it cannot be expected from such a party that contrary to the provisions of law, relying upon certain other legal provisions, he would ignore the mandatory provisions of Civil Courts Act and would institute original civil proceedings in a Court which otherwise has the jurisdiction, but does not have the jurisdiction because of the Distribution memo. A litigant was forbidden from instituting his election petition before the Additional District Judge, Khurai, Section 20 Sub-section (2) of Municipalities Act, 1961 does clearly provide that an election petition can be filed or presented to the Additional District Judge having permanent seat of his Court within the revenue district in which such election or nomination is held. This provision is to be read in conjunction with the Civil Courts Act. The Courts are created under the Civil Courts Act and they derive their jurisdiction under the Civil Courts Act. This provision is to be read in conjunction with the Civil Courts Act. The Courts are created under the Civil Courts Act and they derive their jurisdiction under the Civil Courts Act. Place of sueing or a Court where the litigation is to be instituted may be provided by a different Act, but the Civil Courts Act, for the purpose of civil litigation would override all other provisions. Civil Courts Act is not a subordinate litigation to M.P. Municipalities Act. If the legal provisions are read in their true perspective, it would clearly mean to say that in accordance with the Distribution Memo prepared under section 7 of the Sub-section (2) of the Civil Courts Act, an election petition under the Municipalities Act was to be instituted in the Court of the District Judge and for the purpose of its trial and decision, the District Judge was duty bound to transfer it to the Court having a permanent seat at the place where the election or nomination took place." 15. On a reading of the aforesaid paragraph it is quite apparent that the learned Single Judge has ruled that an election petition under the Municipalities Act can be instituted in the Court of the District Judge and for the purpose of its trial and decision the District Judge is duty bound to transfer it to the Court having a permanent seat at the place where the election or nomination took place. The aforesaid view runs contrary to the view expressed in the case of Anup Pyarelal (supra). We reiterate that if the District Judge lacks inherent jurisdiction he cannot entertain an election petition and hence, the question of taking aid of M.P. Civil Courts Act does not arise. We hereby clarify that as far as the first part of Section 20 is concerned, the District Judge has the jurisdiction to entertain the election petition and, therefore, in exercise of statutory powers conferred on him under M.P. Civil Courts Act he can assign the Additional District Judge to entertain and try the election petition. That would be in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Hence we conclude and hold that the opinion expressed by the learned Judge in Malik Singh Chawla (supra) to the extent it runs contrary to Anup Pyarelal (supra) is not correct. 16. Presently we shall advert to the merits of the case. That would be in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Hence we conclude and hold that the opinion expressed by the learned Judge in Malik Singh Chawla (supra) to the extent it runs contrary to Anup Pyarelal (supra) is not correct. 16. Presently we shall advert to the merits of the case. The sole question is the question of maintainability of the election petition. As has been submitted by Mr. Jain the District Judge at Shahdol alone could have entertained the election petition and the Additional District Judge, Beohari could not have done so. We have already held that the District Judge has the authority to transfer his civil business to the Additional District Judge who had the jurisdiction under the M.P. Municipalities Act and in the case at hand he has issued a distribution memo dated 27-12-1999. In view of the said premises the entertaining of election petition by the Additional District Judge Beohari cannot be found fault with. 17. Resultantly we perceive no jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge and we feel obliged to give the stamp of approval to the same. Accordingly the civil revision stands dismissed without any order as to costs.