CHANDRASHEKARAPPA Vs. BASAVANNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the petitioner before the lower Court who filed an election petition under Section 21 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 ("the Act" for short), whereby he challenged the election held to the town municipal council Mulgund in which the petitioner was a candidate. Respondents 1 to 4 were declared as elected to the town municipal council in the election held on 29-4-1990 and the results were declared on 30-4-1990. For the purpose of this appeal it is necessary to go into the grounds urged in support of the election petition.

(2.) The election petition was presented on 14-5-1990 before the Vacation District Judge, Darwar, since the Court of Civil Judge was not functioning in view of the summer vacation. Under Section 21(1) the election petition has to be filed within 15 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. The District Judge having received the election petition, after holding that he was competent to receive the petition, transferred the same to the Court of Civil Judge, Gadag, on the reopening of the said Court after summer vacation. The contesting respondents questioned the validity of the presentation of the election petition before the Vacation District Judge and contended that the election petition was not properly presented and therefore question of its transfer to the Court of Civil Judge did not arise. The substance of the contention put forth by the said respondents was that, under the Act the election petition has to be presented to the Election Tribunal and as per Section 2(9) of the Act the "Election Tribunal" means in respect of any area any judicial officer appointed by notification by the Government to be the Election Tribunal in respect of such area and where no such judicial officer is appointed, the Civil Judge having jurisdiction over the area within which the election has been or should have been held, (underlining is ours). According to the contesting respondents there is no notification issued by the State Government appointing any judicial officer to be the Election Tribunal and therefore the Civil Judge having the jurisdiction over the area concerned alone could function as the Election Tribunal and this statutory entrustment of the power to entertain the election petition to the Civil Judge is in the personal capacity of the Civil Judge i.e. "as persona designata" and not as the Court of Civil Judge and therefore during the vacation when the Civil Judge was not functioning, the said power cannot be exercised by the vacation District Judge. This contention was taken up as a preliminary point and the Court of Civil Judge has accepted this contention. Consequently the election petition was dismissed without going into the merits of the matter.

(3.) The sole point for consideration in this appeal is whether the Vacation District Judge was competent to entertain the election petition under Section 21 of the Act and whether the Civil Judge referred in Section 2(9) of the Act functioning as an Election Tribunal as a persona designata and not as a Court of Civil Judge. The Civil Courts in the State of Karnataka are constituted and organised under the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 ('Civil Courts Act' for short). Section 2(b) defines Civil Court as a District Court, Court of a Civil Judge or a Munsiff's Court. Under Section 4, it is provided that there shall be a District Court for each district and as per Section 6 there shall be a Court of Civil Judge for each district. Both these sections provide for appointment of additional District Judges and additional Civil Judges with which we are not concerned here. Section 9 provides that, when more than one civil Judge is appointed to the Court of Civil Judge, one of them shall be appointed as Principal Civil Judge and the arrangement of work amongst them shall have to be made by the Principal Civil Judge, subject to the orders of the District Judge, if any. Section 14 states that the District Court shall be deemed to be the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the local limits of its jurisdiction and similarly Section 16 states that the jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge shall extend to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature. Section 28 provides for the vacation of the civil courts. Section 28(3) and (4), which is relevant for our purpose, are given below: