JUDGMENT By the Court.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24th July, 2009, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36942 of 2009, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant, wherein a challenge was put forth to the order dated 5th May, 2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Agra, in an election petition that had questioned the elections of the appellant as a Member of the Cantonment Board, Agra. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘returned candidate’) came to be elected as a Member of the Cantonment Board held on 18th of May, 2008. Respondent No. 2-Ramesh Baghel questioned his election by filing an election petition before the learned District Judge, Agra in accordance with the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007. The election petition was transferred by the District Judge before the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Agra where the returned candidate filed a written objection that in view of Rules 55 and 57 of the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), the election petition could not proceed before the learned Additional District Judge and it had to be tried by the District Judge himself. This application has been rejected by the order dated 5th of May, 2009 by the learned Additional District Judge, who found that he had the competence to hear the election petition. 3. Assailing the said order, the returned candidate preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36942 of 2009 raising the same plea as raised before the learned Additional District Judge and the learned Single Judge by order dated 24.7.2009, impugned in the present appeal dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the order dated 5th of May, 2009. 4. Aggrieved, the returned candidate has preferred this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court urging that the election petition can be heard only by the District Judge of the District as no notification has been issued by the State Government empowering the Additional District Judge to hear any such dispute. 5. We have heard Shri Indra Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Shri J.S. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 as well as Shri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 6. 5. We have heard Shri Indra Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Shri J.S. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 as well as Shri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 6. A preliminary objection had been raised by Shri Pandey to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the District Judge or the Additional District Judge while proceeding to hear the election petition was a Election Tribunal and therefore, in view of the language in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, the appeal would not be maintainable. 7. Replying to the aforesaid submission, Shri Tripathi invited our attention to the fact that the proceedings regulating election petitions under Rules, are provided under a Central Act made by Parliament for which it is alone competent to legislate under the Union List. He pointed out that the Rules have been framed under the Cantonment Act, 1914, the subject whereof is neither under the State List or the Concurrent List. He has further placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Ashish Kumar Bala, (2008) 1 UPLBEC 171 which is as follows : “10. In response, Shri Chaturvedi has drawn the attention of the Court to the provision of Chapter 8, Rule 5 wherein it excludes the embargo of special appeal being maintainable in respect of the matters of the Union List and he has also relies upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court reported in 1997 (3) AWC 1997, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kanpur v. Union of India and others, which reads as under : “4......................................................................... ............................................................................ On a plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that if the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been passed in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution in respect of Arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise of purported Central Act with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State lists or Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution or of the Government or any officer or authority made or purported to jurisdiction under any such Act, then no appeal shall lie against the judgment of the Single Judge. If on the other hand, the judgment of the Single Judge is rendered with respect to any matter enumerated in the Union List, then an appeal may be filed against the judgment.” 11. The aforesaid judgment is quoted with approval in the case reported in (2003) 1 UPLBEC 496 , Vajara Yojna Seed Farm, Kalyanpur (M/s.) and others v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, U.P., Kanpur and another.” 8. Having considered the same, we have no hesitation in holding that the special appeal is maintainable as urged by Shri Tripathi, in view of the submissions advanced by him. The preliminary objection is accordingly, overruled. 9. Coming to the substantive part of the issue raised, learned counsel for the appellant submits that election petition presented under the Rules has to be tried by the District Judge alone and cannot be transferred to the Additional District Judge. 10. In this connection he has invited our attention to the Division Bench judgment in the case of Major S.N. Singh v. Cantonment Board, Varanasi and others, 1978 (4) ALR 859. In order to appreciate the submission it is apt to reproduce Rules 55 and 57 of the Rules, which reads as follows : “55. Officer to whom the petition should be presented.—A petition calling in question the validity of an election or the return of a particular candidate may be presented in writing to the District Judge of the district within which the election has been held (or where there is no District Judge, to such Judicial Officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf) within seven days after the date on which the result of the election was declared, either by a person who was a candidate at the election or by not less than five persons entitled to vote at the said election : Provided that no such petition shall be presented on the ground either that the name of any person qualified to vote has been omitted from the electoral roll or that the name of any person not so qualified has been inserted in the roll. 57. 57. Inquiry into election.—Where a petition has been presented under Rule 55 and the security deposited as required by Rule 56, the District Judge or the officer appointed in accordance with Rule 55, or any Judicial Officer subordinate to him and not below such rank as the State Government may by notification in the official Gazette in this behalf to whom the District Judge may transfer the petition, shall after notice to all candidates for the ward concerned at the election (other than such of them as may be petitioners) hold such inquiry as he deems necessary.” 11. Somewhat in similar circumstance, this Court considered the question in the case of Major S.N. Singh (supra) and held that the power to try such an election petition is conferred only on the District Judge and after discussing the provisions of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act arrived at the following conclusion : “A perusal of Rules 43 and 45 indicates that the election petition is to be presented not in the Court of the District Judge but to the District Judge. Likewise the power which has been given under Rule 45 of the rules to transfer the election petition has been given to the District Judge and not to the Court of the District Judge. In this view of the matter unless it can be shown that the Officer to whom the election petition has been transferred by the District Judge is an Officer contemplated by Rule 45, the order of transfer cannot be sustained. In our opinion no assistance can be derived from Section 8 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act for the simple reason that the said section falls in Chapter II of the said Act which deals with the constitution of the Civil Courts. Section 3 prescribes classes of Courts and provides that there shall be the following classes of Civil Courts under this Act, namely, (1) The Court of the District Judge; (2) The Court of the Additional Judge; (3) The Court of the Civil Judge; and (4) The Court of the Munsif. Section 8 deals with Additional Judges. It reads : “8. Additional Judges.—(1) When the business pending before any District Judge requires the aid of Additional Judges for its speedy disposal the State Government may, having consulted the High Court appoint such Additional Judges as may be requisite. Section 8 deals with Additional Judges. It reads : “8. Additional Judges.—(1) When the business pending before any District Judge requires the aid of Additional Judges for its speedy disposal the State Government may, having consulted the High Court appoint such Additional Judges as may be requisite. (2) Additional Judges so appointed shall discharge any of the functions of a District Judge which the District Judge may assign to them. And in the discharge of those functions they shall exercise the same powers as the District Judge.” It is thus apparent that the power which can be exercised by Additional Judges contemplated by Section 8(2) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act is that power which exercisable by the District Judge in his capacity as the Presiding Officer of the Principal Civil Court. Had the power to entertain and decide an election petition been conferred by Rules 43 and 45 of the Cantonments Electoral Rules, 1945 to the Court of the District Judge it could with some justification be urged that the provisions of Section 8 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act were applicable. This being not the position, it is plain that a tribunal had been created by Rules 43 and 45 aforesaid which is to be presided over by the District Judge. In this view of the matter the election petition had to be decided either by the District Judge or by such other Officer as enumerated in Rule 45. No notification which may have been issued by the State Government indicating that an election petition filed under Rule 43 aforesaid before a District Judge could be transferred by him to an Additional District Judge has been brought to our notice. If such a notification had existed then the District Judge would certainly have power to transfer the petition to such an Additional District Judge in view of Rule 45. In the absence of such a notification the election petition, in the present case, in our opinion had to be decided by the District Judge and could not be transferred to the IInd Additional District Judge. The view which we take finds support from the decision of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Moti Lal Verma v. Narain Prasad (1).” 12. The view which we take finds support from the decision of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Moti Lal Verma v. Narain Prasad (1).” 12. Sri Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand contended that in view of the language employed in Section 3(17) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the term District Judge would include an Additional District Judge as well. 13. He further submits that, in the event, this Court finds that the matter could not be gone into before the learned Additional District Judge then a direction should be issued to the Election Tribunal, namely the learned District Judge to proceed to decide the election petition himself within a stipulated time. 14. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, we find that the District Judge referred to in the Rules is a “legal tribunal” by virtue of his office as District Judge empowered to decide election disputes. The power to deal with such election petitions can be conferred by the Competent Authority through a separate notification to be published in the Gazette to that effect. The legislature consciously did not clothe any other officer than the District Judge and in his absence or otherwise, an officer of the same rank, to be notified through a publication in the Gazette, to act as a tribunal under the 2007 Rules. The language employed in the rules admit of no ambiguity and it is a well ordained rule of interpretation that if a provision is clear and unambiguous then the Courts would not attempt any violation of a specific description. 15. In our opinion the purport of the Rules namely Rules 55 and 57 clearly demonstrate the same. The District Judge, therefore, could not have transferred the case to the Additional District Judge. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Chandra Aggarwal and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, AIR 1966 SC 1888 enunciated the distinction between the meaning of the word persona designata and legal tribunal as follows : “(3) In Balakrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Ayyar, 44 Ind App 261: (AIR 1917 PC 71), Lord Atkinson has pointed out the difference between a persona designata and a legal tribunal. The difference is this that the “determinations of a persona designata are not to be treated as judgments of a legal tribunal”. The difference is this that the “determinations of a persona designata are not to be treated as judgments of a legal tribunal”. In Central Talkies Ltd. v. Dwarka Prasad, 1961(3) SCR 495 at pp. 500-501: ( AIR 1961 SC 606 at pp. 608-609) this Court has accepted the meaning given to the expression persona designata in Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary, 4th Edn., p. 263 as “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.” 16. In view of the conclusions drawn hereinabove, we find it difficult to uphold the impugned judgment, which is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the order impugned in the writ petition dated 5.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Agra is also quashed. The election petition shall now stand transmitted to the learned District Judge at Agra who shall try the same, and decide it in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 17. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, subject to the observations made hereinabove. 18. No order as to costs. ————