C. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) AS the question of law involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) MUNGABAI and Rajeshwari (petitioner and respondent No. 1 respectively in W. P. No. 2783/2000) as also Rajkumar Shivhare and Anand Kumar Tiwari (petitioner and respondent No. 1 respectively in W. P. No. 2782/2000) were elected as members of Janpad Panchayat, Lakhnadon. Mungabai and Rajeshwari were candidates for the office of President of Janpad Panchayat, in which Mungabai has been declared elected. Rajeswari challenged the election of Mungabai as President of the Janpad Panchayat by way of an election petition filed under Section 122 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Act 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). Similarly Rajkumar and Anand Tiwari contested the election of the office of Vice President of the Janpad Panchayat in which Rajkumar has been declared elected. Anand Tiwari questioning the election of Rajkumar, has also preferred election petition under Section 122 of the Act. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that Rajeshwari and Anand Tiwari (hereinafter referred to as the election petitioners) presented the election petitions before the Collector, but later on, same were transferred by him to the Additional Collector for disposal. Mungabai and Raj Kumar Shivhare (hereinafter referred to as the 'returned candidates') questioned the jurisdiction of the Addl. Collector to hear the election petitions. Addl. Collector by separate orders dt. 2-5-2000 (Annexure P-1 in both the writ petitions) overruled the objection of the returned candidates and held that it has jurisdiction to hear the election petitions. Aggrieved by the same, returned candidates have filed these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the said orders. ( 4 ) MR. P. C. Paliwal appears for the petitioners whereas respondent No. 1 is represented by Shri R. P. Jain. Mr. K. C. Ghildiyal, Govt. Advocate, appears for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. ( 5 ) MR. ( 4 ) MR. P. C. Paliwal appears for the petitioners whereas respondent No. 1 is represented by Shri R. P. Jain. Mr. K. C. Ghildiyal, Govt. Advocate, appears for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. ( 5 ) MR. Paliwal appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that Section 122 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Act, having provided that election petition in case of Janpad Panchayat has to be presented before the Collector, he had no jurisdiction to transfer the case to the Additional Collector for decision. He emphasises that the Collector being the specified authority under Section 122 of the Act, election petition is necessarily to be heard by him and he lacks jurisdiction to transfer the case for disposal to the Additional Collector. Collector being the specified authority Addl. Collector, necessarily, according to Shri Paliwal, has no authority to hear the election petition and as such the impugned orders overruling the objection of the returned candidates are fit to be quashed. Mr. R. P. Jain and Mr. K. C. Ghildiyal, appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and 3, respectively, however, submit that the expression "collector" in Sec. 122 of the Act shall also include the Additional Collector. ( 6 ) IN view of the rival submissions, what falls for determination is as to whether the expression "collector" will also include the Addl. Collector and further whether the Collector can transfer the case to the Addl. Collector for decision. ( 7 ) NEITHER on principle nor on precedent, I am inclined to accept the submission of Shri Paliwal, but before I state the reasons for the same, reference to the statutory provisions relevant for decision deserve to be noted. Section 122 of the Act, reads as follows :-"122. Election petition.- (1) An election under this Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner :-i) in case of Gram Panchayat to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue);ii) In case of Janpad Panchayat to the Collector; andiii) In case of Zila Panchayat to the Divisional Commissioner and not otherwise. (2) No such petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the election in question was notified. (3) Such petition shall be enquired into or disposed of according to such procedure as may be prescribed. (2) No such petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the election in question was notified. (3) Such petition shall be enquired into or disposed of according to such procedure as may be prescribed. Sections 16 and 17 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'code') which are relevant for the purpose read as follows :-"16. Power to appoint Collector- The State Government shall appoint in each district a Collector who shall exercise therein the powers and discharge the duties conferred and imposed on a Collector by or under this Code or any other enactment for the time being in force. 17 Power to appoint Additional Collectors- (1) The State Government may appoint one or more Addl. Collectors in a district. (2) An Additional Collector shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties conferred and imposed on a Collector by or under this Code or by or under any other enactment for the time being in force, in such cases or class of cases as the State Government may, by a general order, notify or as the Collector of the district may, subject to any general or special restrictions imposed by the State Government, by an order in writing direct. (3) This Code and every other enactment for the time being in force and any rule made under this Code or any such other enactment shall, except where expressly directed otherwise, apply to the Addl. Collector, when exercising any powers or discharging any duties under sub-section (2), as if he were the Collector of the district. " (Underlining mine)Rule 11 (1) of the M. P. Panchayats (Election Petitions) Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for membership) Rules 1993 reads as follows :-"11. Procedure before the specified officer, Officers and his powers- (1) Subject to the provisions of these Rules every election petition shall be enquired into by the specified officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of the suits :provided that it shall only be necessary for the specified officer to make a memorandum of evidence of any witness examined by him. " ( 8 ) SECTION 16 of the Code inter alia confers power to the State Govt. " ( 8 ) SECTION 16 of the Code inter alia confers power to the State Govt. to appoint Collector in each district and Section 17 of the Code confers power to the State Govt. to appoint one or more Additional Collectors in the districts. From a plain reading of Section 17 (2) of the Code, it is evident that an Additional Collector is to exercise such powers and discharge such duties conferred and imposed on a Collector by or under this Code or by or under any other enactment in such cases or class of cases as the State Government may, by a general order, notify. This provision further confers power on the Collector of the district to ask the Additional Collector to exercise and discharge such duties conferred on him by or under the Code or by or under any other enactment subject to any general or special restrictions imposed by the State Government, by an order in writing. It is common ground that the State Govt. has not put any restriction on thepower of the Collector by any general or special order. Here in the present case, under Section 122 (1) (2) of the Act, 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 Code, an Additional Collector can; not 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 do so. In the present case, the Collector of the District has directed that his power under Section 122 of the Act shall be exercised by the Addl. Collector and the same being permissible under Section 17 of the Code, I am of the considered opinion, that the Additional Collector has jurisdiction to hear the election petition in case it is transferred to him. As stated earlier, subject to any general or special restrictions imposed by the State Government, Collector of the District does possess authority to ask the Addl. Collector to exercise his power under the Act. As stated earlier, subject to any general or special restrictions imposed by the State Government, Collector of the District does possess authority to ask the Addl. Collector to exercise his power under the Act. ( 9 ) RULE 11 of the M. P. Panchayats (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for membership) Rules, 1995 do provide for enquiry in election petition by the specified officer. Use of the expression 'specified officer' in this rule cannot be construed to mean Collector only. It is relevant here to state that under Section 122 of the Act, election petitions questioning election to Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat are required to be presented before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Collector and Commissioner respectively and the Rule in question governs enquiry of all election petitions and hence the Rule incorporates the expression 'specified officer'. From the Scheme of the Act and the Code, in my opinion, 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 Sec. 17 (2) of the Code. ( 10 ) NOW, reverting to the authorities of this Court, Mr. Paliwal contends that the action of the Collector in transferring the election petition for decision to the Addl. Collector is in the teeth of the law laid down by this Court in case of Dhaniram v. S. D. O. , Pichhore, 1997 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 85 and my attention has been drawn to the paragraph 3 of the said judgment which reads as follows :-"from the aforesaid rules, it is clear that any order of recounting can be passed after conclusion of the trial and the recounting can only be ordered by the Sub-Divisional Officer who is a prescribed authority to decide the dispute. The Sub-Divisional Officer has not acted properly, inasmuch as it acted illegally in delegating the powers of recounting to the Tahsildar. The authority is described as Sub-Divisional Officer as the authority to decide the election petitions, therefore, any act done by the Tahsildar of recounting cannot be said to be proper and on the basis of recounting by the Tahsildar, the Sub-divisional Officer gravely erred in dismissing the election petition. The authority is described as Sub-Divisional Officer as the authority to decide the election petitions, therefore, any act done by the Tahsildar of recounting cannot be said to be proper and on the basis of recounting by the Tahsildar, the Sub-divisional Officer gravely erred in dismissing the election petition. The order dismissing the election petition is hereby set aside with a direction to Sub-Divisional officer to decide the petition according to law and shall also decide the preliminary objections raised by the respondents before him. He cannot shirk from his responsibility and delegate his powers to subordinate authority. "in the aforesaid case, power of the Sub-Divisional Officer to delegate its power to the Tahsildar was under consideration. In the said case, election petition was presented before the Sub-Divisional Officer, as it seems that election which was called in question was in relation to a Gram Panchayat. Section 122 of the Act did not confer any power to the Sub-Divisional Officer to delegate his powers and functions to the Tahsildar nor any other provision in any of the enactment like the 'code' was brought to the notice of the Court that the Sub-Divisional Officer can transfer the case. To put the record straight, it is relevant here to state that nothing has been pointed out to me to show that the Sub-Divisional Officer has any authority to transfer the case to the Tahsildar under any statute, akin to Section 17 of the Code. Hence the authority relied on is clearly distinguishable. ( 11 ) A Division Bench of this Court in case of Shantilal Jain v. M. L. Patil, Addl. Commissioner, Gwalior Dn. , 1988 MPLJ 172 , had the occasion to consider the power of the Collector vis-a-vis the Additional Collector under Section 17 of the Code. In the said case, the Division Bench has held as follows:-"4. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the Addl. Collector, exercising lawfully the powers of the Collector and having disposed of the appeal exercising his jurisdiction lawfully, the grievance is meritless. Indeed, Sec. 17 of the General Clauses Act itself envisages that any functionary under any enactment may be mentioned by the official title and under "any" enacted law those functions may be exercised not by an officer so described but also by one who is authorised thereunder to exercise those functions. Indeed, Sec. 17 of the General Clauses Act itself envisages that any functionary under any enactment may be mentioned by the official title and under "any" enacted law those functions may be exercised not by an officer so described but also by one who is authorised thereunder to exercise those functions. In virtue of his entitlement under sub-Sections (2) and (3) of Sec. 17 of the Code, the Addl. Collector is evidently duly authorised to hear appeal transferred to him by the Collector. The Scheme being a State "enactment", the provisions afore-extracted fully cover the field and reliance by petitioner's counsel on the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act would not clearly avail the petitioner. " (Underlining mine) ( 12 ) IN some-what similar circumstances, the question falling for determination in the present case came up for consideration before a learned single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 4040/1995 (Pradeep Kumar Gandhi v. Vinod Kumar Goswamy) disposed of on 10-3-1997. In the said case, power of the Addl. Commissioner to hear appeal under Section 122 (1) (3) of the Act was considered. It is relevant here to state that under Section 122 (1) (3) of the Act, election petition, in case of Zila Panchayat is required to be presented before the Commissioner. Referring to Section 15 of the Code which is in pari materia with Section 17 of the Code, this Court held that the Addl. Commissioner can exercise power of the Commissioner. In the said case, it has been held as follows :-"the word 'divisional Commissioner' having not been defined under the Adhiniyam 1993 its meaning is to be understood by the provisions of M. P. L. R. Code under which the Commissioners and Additional Commissioners are appointed. Section 15 (2) of the Code clearly empowers Additional Commissioner to exercise powers of Commissioner under the Code or under any other enactment if authorised by the notification of the State Govt. or the distribution of the work made by the Commissioner. Section 15 of the MPLR Code reads as under :-15 Power to appoint Additional Commissioner :- (1) The State Govt. may appoint an additional Commissioner in a division or in two or more divisions. or the distribution of the work made by the Commissioner. Section 15 of the MPLR Code reads as under :-15 Power to appoint Additional Commissioner :- (1) The State Govt. may appoint an additional Commissioner in a division or in two or more divisions. (2) An Additional Commissioner shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties conferred and imposed on a Commissioner by or under this Code or by or under any other enactment for the time being in force in such cases or class of cases as the State Government may, by a general order, notify or as the Commissioner of the division may, subject to any general or special restrictions imposed by the State Government, by an order in writing direct. (3) This Code and every other enactment for the time being in force and any rule made under this Code or any such other enactment shall, except where expressly directed otherwise, apply to the Additional Commissioner when exercising any powers or discharging any duties under sub-section (2) as if he were the Commissioner of the division. The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted that under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Code the powers conferred by 1993 Act on the Commissioner cannot be exercised by Addl. Commissioner. None of the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner in the petition is sustainable. The Competent Authority cannot be said to have committed any error in over-ruling the objections. The petition fails and is dismissed. "thus the view which I have taken is in conformity with law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in case of Shantilal Jain (Supra) and Pradeep Kumar Gandhi (supra ). ( 13 ) IN the result, I do not find any merit in either of the writ petitions and they are dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 500/- to be paid by the petitioners to respondent No. 1 in both the writ petitions. Petitions dismissed. .