JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---Mr. Saboo, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, has raised a preliminary objection that this revision is filed against the order passed by the Court below dismissing Election Petition, while allowing preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondent No. 2, and as such revision application is not maintainable. The learned Counsel for the applicant makes oral request for treating this revision application as writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Both the Counsel for the respondents have no objection if the said prayer is allowed and the hearing of the matter is proceeded as if this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The statements made by the Counsel are accepted. This revision application is treated as writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides. 3. By this writ petition, order passed by Mr. R.B. Mhashakhetri, Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Balapur, District Akola, dated 1st August, 2000, below Exhibits. 1 and 10 in Election Petition No. 5 of 2000, has been assailed. 4. Briefly stated, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 contested the elections, which were held on 9th June, 2000, for the post of the member of Gram Panchayat, Lohara. Results of the said elections were declared on 10th June, 2000. In the said election, the respondent No. 2 was declared to be duly elected. The petitioner herein filed election petition before the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Balapur, being Election Petition No. 5 of 2000, on 26-6-2000, challenging the validity of the election as well as the eligibility of the respondent No. 2 to contest the election as O.B.C. reserved category for women candidate. In the said election petition, the respondent No. 2 filed application Exhibit 10 for dismissing the election petition inter alia on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. The said application was resisted by the applicant and it was contended that the election petition as presented was well within limitation. 5. Before referring to the rival contentions, if would be appropriate to reproduce the impugned judgment, which, in my view, is wholly absurd, unstatable and unsustainable. It clearly shows lack of knowledge and understanding of the learned Judge of the settled legal position. 5. Before referring to the rival contentions, if would be appropriate to reproduce the impugned judgment, which, in my view, is wholly absurd, unstatable and unsustainable. It clearly shows lack of knowledge and understanding of the learned Judge of the settled legal position. The order passed on 1st August, 2000, pursuant to which the election petition came to be dismissed reads thus: "Common order below Exhibit 1 10. 1. To substantiate the contention of the application, Shri Kadri, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, argued that after filing of nomination form by Bilkish Begum, the petitioner Shobha Bhavaskar filed her objection alleging that the caste certificate filed with the nomination form is false and bogus. On that objection, the Election Officer scrutinised the caste certificate. It was issued by the Executive Magistrate, Akola vide Case No. MRC-81/Akola/349/93-93; wherein it is mentioned that the respondent No. 2 Bilkish Begum belongs to 'JULAHA' caste, which is recognised as 'Other Backward Class' under the Government Resolution, Education and Social Welfare Department, No. CBC-1467-M Dated 13th October, 1967, as appearing at Serial No. 57 of the List of Other back-ward class. As such the Election Officer declared that the caste certificate is valid and the objection of the petitioner is rejected vide order dated 26-5-2000. The instant petition is filed on 26-6-2000. However, it ought to have been filed within 15 days of the order declaring validity of the caste certificate. As such the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. 2. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the election of respondent No. 2 on the ground of false and bogus caste certificate. The said election took place on 10-6-2000. This petition is filed on 26-2-2000 and hence it is well within the limitation, as required by the provisions of section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, which reads as under :- "If the validity of any election of a member of a Panchayat is brought in question by any candidate at such election, or by any person qualified to vote at the election to which such question refers, may at any time within 15 days after the date of the declaration of the result of the election, apply to the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), and if there be no Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), and if there be no Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), then to the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), having ordinary jurisdiction in the area within which the election has been or should have been held for the determination of such question." 3. At the out-set Shri S.T. Ingle, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the word 'any election' can be contemplated an election held in Ward No. 3 of village Lohara on 10-6-2000, declaring the respondent No. 2 Bilkish Begum as an elected candidate of that ward. But Shri Kadri, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 pointed out that the objection about the validity of nomination form has already decided by the Election Officer by passing an order on 26-5-2000. However, the petitioner did not file any application challenging its validity under section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, within the statutory period of 15 days, thereafter. Moreover, the respondent No. 2 was allowed to contest the election and was elected as member of Ward No. 3, which was reserved for Other Back-ward Classes women. It is further pointed out that the petitioner was one of the contestant against the respondent No. 2. The validity was already declared by the Election Officer on 26-5-2000 and hence the instant petition filed after one month is barred by limitation. 4. Shri S.T. Ingle, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that filing of nomination paper, its scrutiny, rejection or acceptance is a part of election process; as held in (Maroti Sakharam v. Tahasildar Mul another)1, reported in 1999(2) Mh.L.J., page 550. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2 was elected as Ward Member on 10-6-2000 and therefore, the cause of action arose from that date and the instant petition was filed within 15 days, i.e. on 26-6-2000, excluding 25-6-2000, the Sunday, being the holiday. But in view of the case-law the Election Officer accepted the Election Form and also accepted the validity of caste certificate by order dated 26-5-2000. Therefore, it is termed as an election process and hence the limitation should be 15 days from 26-5-2000, but it is filed 15 days late. 5. I do not agree with the submission made by Shri S.T. Ingle, learned Counsel for the petitioner and hold that the instant petition is time barred. 6. Therefore, it is termed as an election process and hence the limitation should be 15 days from 26-5-2000, but it is filed 15 days late. 5. I do not agree with the submission made by Shri S.T. Ingle, learned Counsel for the petitioner and hold that the instant petition is time barred. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner also argued that writ challenging the rejection of nomination paper, not entertained in the High Court and the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) has ordinary jurisdiction for the determination of such question. If we realise the election process, the acceptance of Election Form of the respondent No. 2 is itself the election as laid down in section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The validity was declared on 26-5-2000 and the remedy is available with the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) and not with the Hon'ble High Court by way of writ petition. Hence, I reject the prayer of respondent No. 2 that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition." The objection of respondent No. 2 in the form of application Exhibit 10 is hereby allowed and I hold that the petition is time barred. As a resultant consequence the petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/-Illegible. Dated 1-8-2000 1-8-2000. (R.B. Mhashakhetri), Civil Judge (J.D.), Balapur." 6. I thought it appropriate to burden this judgment with the entire impugned order since on plain reading of the said order, it would appear that the same is passed due to total lack of knowledge and understanding of the relevant provisions and the settled legal position which has been enunciated by the Apex Court as back as A.I.R. 1952 Supreme Court page 64, in (N.P. Punnu Swami v. Returning Officers, Namakkal Constituency)2 case and reiterated in another judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in (Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi)3 case reported in A.I.R. 1978 Supreme Court page 851. The law is well settled that the election process is ignited with the issuance of notification announcing the election and culminates with the declaration of the results. The law is well settled that the election process is ignited with the issuance of notification announcing the election and culminates with the declaration of the results. Inspite of the above said settled legal position; and the express provision in section 15 of the Act, which the learned Judge has reproduced in his order, that the election petition shall be filed within 15 days after the date of the declaration of the result of the election, the learned Judge has observed that from the date of rejection of objection raised by the applicant during the scrutiny, the limitation to file election petition commences. On such absurd and unstatable reasoning, the learned Judge has held that the election petition as filed on 26th June, 2000 was beyond limitation. 7. In my view, it is not possible to comprehend that a person who is discharging the duty of a Civil Judge, Junior Division, is capable of committing such an unstatable error which is opposed to the well settled law and the express provision in the statute. This cannot be overlooked as an error of judgment, but would be in the realm of lack of knowledge and understanding of the cardinal principles. The only other possibility is that the order under challenge has been passed with purpose. Be that as it may, it would be totally unsafe to assign the trial of this election petition to a Judge who is not familiar with the basic concepts of the election law. I would observe restrain to make any further remarks, for, not to be intemperate and to maintain sobriety. 8. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that it was never the case of the respondent No. 2 that the election petition was barred because the election petition as filed by the applicant was filed after 15 days from the date of rejection of objection at time of scrutiny. However, according to him, the election petition was barred because the same was not filed within 15 days from the declaration of results as required under section 15 of the Act. He submits that election results were declared on 10th June, 2000, whereas the election petition has been filed on 26th June, 2000, which is obviously after 15 days from 10th June, 2000. He submits that election results were declared on 10th June, 2000, whereas the election petition has been filed on 26th June, 2000, which is obviously after 15 days from 10th June, 2000. Besides this, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent, there were other points raised on behalf of the respondents, challenging the maintainability of the election petition. The learned Counsel rightly submits that none of the said submissions have been even adverted to by the trial Court in the impugned judgment. It is, therefore, clarified that this Court has not addressed itself on any of the said issues and the impugned order is reversed only with regard to the ground made out by the trial Court as aforesaid. In other words, no other question has been examined in the present judgment; and it will, therefore, be open to both the parties to raise all possible contentions including objection with regard to the maintainability of the election petition. It is further made clear, as both the Counsel agree, that the questions regarding the maintainability of the election petition, though preliminary objections, may be decided by the trial Court at the time of final disposal of the election petition and not by way of preliminary issue. This submission is very reasonable and deserves to be accepted. 9. Having regard to the observations made in the foregoing paras, it would be open to the parties to apply to the District Judge for assigning the matter to some other Court of competent jurisdiction within the same District so that the election petition can be tried and disposed of by that Judge in accordance with law. The said application may be filed within a period of two weeks from today and if such application is filed, the same be disposed of by the District Judge within two weeks therefrom. After the election petition is assigned to a particular Judge, the same be tried and disposed of expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date the file stands transferred before that Judge. 10. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge dismissing the election petition being barred by limitation on the ground that it has been filed after 15 days from the date of rejection of objection at the time of scrutiny, is wholly unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 10. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge dismissing the election petition being barred by limitation on the ground that it has been filed after 15 days from the date of rejection of objection at the time of scrutiny, is wholly unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. It is relevant to point out that the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has fairly conceded that the reason assigned by the learned Judge cannot be supported in law. 11. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back for being tried and decided on merits in accordance with law. Writ petition allowed. -----