JUDGMENT : The present appeal arises from the order dated 28.04.2016 dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1494/2016. The Learned Single Judge declined interference with order dated 10.09.2015 of the District & Sessions Judge, Bikaner transferring Election Petition No.074/2015 to the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.2 Bikaner as also the order dated 18.01.2016 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.2, Bikaner in renumbered Election Petition No. 99/2015 rejecting the Appellants petition that the latter did not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter under Section 31 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Section 31 of the Act provides that the election of any person as a Member of a municipality may be questioned by an election petition before the District Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the municipal area in question. An appeal lies from the order of the District Judge to this Court under Section 32 of the Act. From amongst the persons elected as a Member, the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson is elected in the prescribed manner. The election of a Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson can be challenged under Section 44 of the Act before the District Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the municipal area also by way of an election petition. But, the proviso vests power in the District Judge, for reasons to be recorded in writing to transfer the same for hearing and disposal to a Judge subordinate to him. The absence of any proviso to Section 31 of the Act makes it apparent that the Legislature intended that any challenge to the election of a Member from a municipal area was to be laid out and heard by the District Judge alone. Otherwise, there was no reason why the proviso could not have been retained in Section 31 of the Act also. A person whose election as a Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson is set aside, will still remain a Member but a person who loses his membership in an election petition will automatically lose his status as a Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson. The consequences of being unseated from the post of Member is therefore far more serious and thus the Legislature thought it proper to confer this power on the District Judge alone. 3. The consequences of being unseated from the post of Member is therefore far more serious and thus the Legislature thought it proper to confer this power on the District Judge alone. 3. The order dated 10.09.2015 of the District Judge transferring the election petition in exercise of powers under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950 (hereinafter called 'the Ordinance') is contrary to Article 243(Z)(A) and which will prevail over the Ordinance as the Act has been framed pursuant to the former. 4. Counsel for the Respondent opposing the application submitted that the Learned Single Judge has rightly construed Section 31 and 44 of the Act harmoniously to hold that the District Judge could transfer an election petition filed under Section 31 also to the Additional District & Sessions Judge. The Ordinance also vests power in the District Judge to transfer a case to any other Additional District & Sessions Judge. There was no dichotomy or bar to the same especially in view of the specific provision in that regard contained in Section 44 of the Act. 5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. 6. The Appellant and Respondent No.3 were candidates for elections in Ward No.12 of the Municipal Board, Nokha. The Appellant was declared elected on 20.08.2015. Respondent No.3 filed an election petition before the District Judge, Bikaner on 09.02.2015 under Section 31 of the Act. The District Judge transferred it on 10.09.2015 to the Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.2, Bikaner under Section 10 of the Ordinance. 7. In the nature of the controversy it is considered appropriate to set out the relevant extracts of the statutory provisions of Sections 31 and 44 of the Act as follows:- "31. Election Petition.- (1) The election of any person as a member of a Municipality may be questioned by an election petition filed within one month from the date of election before the District Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the municipal area on one or more of the following grounds, namely:- ********************* 44. Election Petition.- (1) The election of any person as a member of a Municipality may be questioned by an election petition filed within one month from the date of election before the District Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the municipal area on one or more of the following grounds, namely:- ********************* 44. Determination of validity of election of Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson.- (1) The election of a Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson under Section 43 shall not be called in question except by an election petition presented to the District Judge having territorial jurisdiction, over the municipal area; Provided that where an election petition is presented as aforesaid to a District Judge, he may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, transfer the same for hearing and disposal to a Judge subordinate to him. Explanation.- The District Judge or any other Judge to whom an election petition is or transferred and by whom it is heard in accordance with the provisions of this Section is hereinafter referred to as the Judge.” 8. Undoubtedly Section 10 of the Ordinance provides that the District Judge for purposes of speedy disposal, may transfer a case to an Additional District & Sessions Judge. But, if there is any conflict with the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution introduced by the 74th Amendment, more particularly Article 243(Z)(A) dealing with election to municipalities empowering the Legislature of a State to make law with regard to all matters in connection with elections to the municipality, the former will have to give way to the latter. 9. Section 7 of the Act provides that the term of a municipality shall be for five years. Section 43(11) of the Act provides that the term of the office of a Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson will correspond with the term of the municipality. 10. Section 11 of the Act provides for elections to the municipality. Section 13 of the Act provides for an electoral roll for every ward and also provides who shall be eligible to vote. Since a Member is elected by direct vote under Section 25 of the Act, apparently the Legislature thought it important that if the Membership of a person elected reflecting the will of the electorate was called into question, none other than the District Judge himself should hear the matter. Since a Member is elected by direct vote under Section 25 of the Act, apparently the Legislature thought it important that if the Membership of a person elected reflecting the will of the electorate was called into question, none other than the District Judge himself should hear the matter. Section 30 of the Act provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate any question relating to election and which can be done only in an election petition presented in accordance with the Act. 11. Once a person has been elected as Member or as Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson he can be removed on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 39 of the Act. By virtue of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Election)(Amendment) Rules, 2014, published in the Gazette on 11.07.2014, a person elected as a Member is eligible to be considered for election as a Chairman under Rule 79. Similarly, a person elected as a Member is eligible to contest to the post of Vice- Chairman. But if the election of the Member or Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson is to be called into question it can be only way of an election petition under Section 31 and 44 of the Act respectively. If the election of a Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson is challenged successfully he still retains his Membership of the Municipality. But if he loses his status as elected Member of the Municipality, the loss of status as Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson is automatic without the need to challenge it separately. In the circumstances, the Legislature thought it proper that in the former case if the Membership itself was an issue the power should remain with the District Judge alone while in the latter case the District & Sessions Judge can transfer the case to any other Additional District & Sessions Judge. This is the reason for insertion of the proviso to Section 44 of the Act which is otherwise absent in Section 31. If the Legislature had desired that an election petition questioning Membership could also be either tried by the District & Sessions Judge or transferred to another Additional District & Sessions Judge, there is no reason why the Legislature could not have made that specific incorporation in Section 31 itself alike Section 44 of the Act. 12. The first principle of interpretation is to read the statute as it is and decipher the intention of the Legislature. 12. The first principle of interpretation is to read the statute as it is and decipher the intention of the Legislature. If the language of the statute is clear and admits of no ambiguity, there is no occasion for the Court to read something into the statute which the Legislature did not intend and did not provide for. Similarly the principle of harmonious reading requires that if there is a conflict between two provisions of the Act or one cannot be interpreted without doing violence to the other than only the question of harmonious interpretation arises. In the present case there is no conflict between Section 31 and 44 of the Act which operate in different fields to require any harmonious reading of the same. 13. The order dated 10.09.2015 takes into consideration Section 10 of the Ordinance only without considering the provisions of the Act more particularly Section 31 of the same. Appropriately, the appellant ought to have challenged this order directly rather than to have moved before the Additional District & Sessions Judge contending that he had no jurisdiction in the matter. The same infirmity attaches to the order dated 18.01.2016 of the Additional District Judge which does not reflect any consideration or application of mind to the different provisions of the Act as discussed herein above. The conclusion that there was nothing in the Act to prevent the Additional District & Sessions Judge from hearing the election petition, in our opinion reflects gross inadequate appreciation of the provisions of the Act which have not even been noticed let alone discussed. Both the orders are held to be unsustainable and are set aside. Election Petition No.074/2015, which appears to have been numbered as Election Petition No.99/2015 before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.2, Bikaner, has to be tried by the District & Sessions Judge, Bikaner alone and cannot be transferred to any other Court. 14. We are informed that the election petition is still at a nascent stage of exchange of pleadings. The matter shall proceed from that stage before the court of District & Sessions Judge, Bikaner in accordance with law. 15. The order under appeal is set aside. The appeal is allowed.