JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. I have heard Mr. S. Tapalatra, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. J. Bhusan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 20.05.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Title Appeal No. 04 of 2011. 3. The question raised in this application is whether the learned District Judge, without statutory prescriptions has the power to entertain an appeal against the order passed by a notified Panchayat Tribunal constituted in terms of Section 198(2) of the Tripura Pancheyats Act, 1993. 4. Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that Election Tribunal has been constituted by the State Government of Tripura, on the recommendation of the High Court as per provision of Section 198 of the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993. As per Rule 71 of the Tripura Panchayats (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993, every dispute relating to election to Panchayat shall be enquired into by the Panchayat Election Tribunal, as early as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of trial of suits. There is no provision as such in the Tripura Panchayats (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993 regarding filing of an appeal against the order passed by the Panchayat Tribunal. 5. Facts, leading to filing of this revision, reveals that the Petitioner filed an election case before the Election Tribunal, constituted by the State Government, as aforesaid, to declare the election of the Respondent No. 3, as void and thereby declare the Petitioner as elected member by defeating the Respondent No. 3.After filing of the election petition, a separate petition was filed for addition of party. On filing such application, the learned Tribunal registered it as Misc. Case. Subsequently, the said Misc. case was dismissed for default on 13.01.2010, since the Petitioner did not take any step. Thereafter a date was fixed for hearing on the question of maintainability of the petition on 04.10.2010 by the Panchayat Tribunal. On the date so fixed, another petition was filed for restoration of the said Misc. Case No. 47(Amend) of 2009.Thereafter, on 14.12.2010, another petition was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay. Thereafter a date was fixed for hearing on the question of maintainability of the petition on 04.10.2010 by the Panchayat Tribunal. On the date so fixed, another petition was filed for restoration of the said Misc. Case No. 47(Amend) of 2009.Thereafter, on 14.12.2010, another petition was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay. But on that date the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was on leave. So a date was fixed for hearing on the question of maintainability of the petition. On the date so fixed, the petition for restoration of Misc. Case was not entertained and prayer for condonation of delay was dismissed by the learned Tribunal, for the reason that the Petitioner sought for several adjournments, for hearing on the question of maintainability of the case. 6. On conclusion of the hearing of the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petition was not maintainable on the ground that the custodian of the ballot papers, i.e. District Election Officer (District Magistrate, North Tripura, Kailashahar) was not made party. Finally, the election petition was dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. Consequently, the Petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as costs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Appellant preferred the appeal before the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar. 7. Now, question for consideration before us is whether the District Judge is the appellate authority in respect of the Panchayat Tribunal constituted under the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993. It is not disputed that the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kailashahar, North Tripura has been notified as the Panchayat Tribunal, constituted under the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993 in consultation with the High Court. Therefore, while disposing of election cases arising out of Panchayat election, the Court of Civil Judges exercises jurisdiction as a Panchayat Tribunal and if function shall be regulated in terms of the provisions of the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993 and the Rules made there under. No appellate provision has been made in the Tripura Panchayats Act and the Election Rules, made there under, therefore, apparently, the District Judge could not have assumed the powers of appellate authority to dispose of the appeal filed against the final order passed by the Tribunal. The relevant extract of the Tripura Panchayats (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993 are reproduced herein below: Section - 70. The relevant extract of the Tripura Panchayats (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993 are reproduced herein below: Section - 70. Filing Petition: (1) The petition referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 198 shall be filled(within sixty days from the date of publication of election result) before the Panchayat Election Tribunal which shall be constituted by the State Government on the recommendation of the Gauhati High Court. (2) The petition shall contain a statement in brief of the material facts on which the Petitioner relies and shall where necessary be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively. It shall be filed by the Petitioners and verified in the manner prescribed for verification of pleading in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (3) If the irregularities alleged in the petition are likely to affect the validity of the election of more than on returned candidate the Petitioner shall join opposite party to his petition all such returned candidate. (4) The Petitioner, may, if so desires in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidate or candidates, claim for a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected. (5) The Panchayat Election Tribunal shall, as soon as may be, cause copy of the petition to be served on each opposite party. Section - 75. Conclusion of Hearing: (1) At the conclusion of the enquiry the Panchayat Election Tribunal shall declare, whether election of the returned candidate or candidates is void under Rule 74; (2) If he declares the election of the returned candidates void he shall further pass an order either; (a) declaring that any other party to the petition who has under these rules claimed the seat has been duly elected; or (b) ordering a fresh election. (3) The order of the Panchayat Election Tribunal under Sub-rule (1) or Sub-rule (2) shall be communicated forthwith to the District Election Officer concerned, State Panchayat Election Commission and the State Government. Section -76. (3) The order of the Panchayat Election Tribunal under Sub-rule (1) or Sub-rule (2) shall be communicated forthwith to the District Election Officer concerned, State Panchayat Election Commission and the State Government. Section -76. Fresh Election at Panchayat Election Tribunal's Order: When an election is declared void under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 75 and a fresh election is ordered under Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2) of that rule the seat of the returned candidate or the seats of the returned candidates, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be vacant from the date of the order of the Panchayat Election Tribunal and the State Government shall forthwith take necessary steps for holding such fresh election. 8. In terms of the provision of Section 198(2) of the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993, the decision of the Court/Tribunal will be considered final. Section 198 of the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993 reads as follows: 198. (1) The State Government shall constitute such Panchayat Election Tribunals, as may be necessary, on the recommendation of the Guwahati High Court, to dispose of all election petitions challenging elections under this Act. The jurisdiction, powers and functions, and headquarters of these Tribunals shall be such as may be prescribed in consultation with the High Court. (2) The decision and order of the Election Tribunal passed under Sub-section (1) shall be final. Therefore, the legislature did not intend to prescribe any authority as appellate authority in the Statute. As such, the District Judge himself also being a Tribunal in respect of the Zilla Parishad Election apparently could not have acted as appellate authority by assuming the powers as per the procedure provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. Learned Counsel for the Respondents in usual fairness contended that the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the District Judge is beyond the scope of the provision of the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993. Therefore, the appellate order dated 20.05.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Title Appeal No. 04 of 2011 is not tenable in law. 9. Learned Counsel for the Respondents in usual fairness contended that the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the District Judge is beyond the scope of the provision of the Tripura Panchayats Act, 1993. Therefore, the appellate order dated 20.05.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Title Appeal No. 04 of 2011 is not tenable in law. In absence of specific provision in the statute empowering the District Judge, to act as an appellate authority in respect of disputes resolved by a Special Tribunal constituted by a Statute, the District Judge could not have assumed the powers of the CRP appellate authority to decide the appeal in terms of the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in T.A. No. 04 of 2011 acted beyond the jurisdiction vested in law in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.05.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in T.A. No. 04 of 2011 is hereby set aside and quashed. 11. The revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed