MAHESWAR REDDY Vs. KRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J allowing W.P. No. 7485/81. The 1st respondent herein, who is the writ petitioner, called in question the jurisdiction of the District Munsif, Gadwal, Mahboobnagar District, to entertain the election petition O.P. No. 3/81 on the file of the District Munsif, Gadwal, challenging the election of the President of the Panchayat Samithi, Gadwal. The Panchayat Samithi, Gadwal, has headquarters at Gadwal. There is a District Munsif Court at Gadwal. The Subordinate Judge's Court at Mahboobnagar exercises jurisdiction over the ares included within territorial jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court, Gadwal. The Headquarters of the Panchayat Samithi, Gadwal is at Gadwal which lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court at Gadwal as well as the Subordinate Judge's Court at Mahboobnagar. On 19-6-1981 the day on which the election petition was filed, Rule 1 of the Rules for the Decision of Election Disputes, which determines the jurisdiction of the Court which could entertain the election petition stood thus:

(2.) Mr. A.V. Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us, as he contended before the learned Single Judge, that the rule must be interpreted to mean that only where there is a Subordinate Judge's Court at the Headquarters of the Panchayat Samithi, that Subordinate Judge would have jurisdiction and that the Subordinate Judge's Court with Headquarters situated at a different place other than the Headquarters of ihe Panchayat Samithi would cot have jurisdiction and consequently the Principal District Munsif, Gadwal, having territorial jurisdiction over the Headquarters of the Panchayat Samithi, Gadwal, would be competent to entertain (he election petition. We are unable to agree with this contention, When the rule clearly lays down that primarily the Court competent to entertain the election petition is 'subordinate Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the place in which the office of the Panchayat Samithi is situated', then the other two alternatives would not at all apply. The Subordinate Judge's Court at Mababubnagar has territor. jal jurisdiction over Gadwal which is the place at which the office of the Panchayat Samithi, Gadwal is situated. As on 19-6-1981 it is only the Subordinate Judge, that has jurisdiction to entertain O.P. 3/81. That is what the learned single Judge has held and we entirely concur with him. The fact that subsequently on 29-1-1982 the said rule was substituted by another rule which reads (2) Except in cases falling under clause (ii), the Subordinate Judge at the Headquarters of the Panchayat Samithi or if there is more than one Subordinate Judge at the Headquarters, the Principal Subordinate Judge or if there is no such Subordinate Judge at the He adquarters, the District Munsif at the Headquarters or if there is more than one District Munsif at the Headquarters, the Principal District Munsif or if there is no District Munsif also in the Headquarters, the District Munsif having territorial jurisdiction over the place in which the office of the Panchayat Samithi is situated' cannot affect the jurisdiction of the Subordinata Judge, Mahboobnagar, who alone had jurisdiction to entertain O P. 3/81. No doubt as per the amended rule, primarily it is the District Munsif, Gadwal, that would have jurisdiction to entertain the election petition in respect of the election of the President of the Panchayat Samithi Gadwal. for, there is no Subordinate' Judges Court at the Head Quarters of the Panchayat Samithi, Gadwal. But that rule came into force on 29-l-l982. long after the election petition was filed. This rule subsequently introduced by wav of amendment cannot affect the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge, Mahbubnagar who alone was competent to entertain the election petition on 19-6-1961.

(3.) Mr. Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant also contended that as the District Munsif. Gadwal, has jurisdiction to entertain the election petition O P. 3/1981 already filed in that Court on 19-6-1981, the District Munsif, Gadwal, should be allowed to continue to deal with that election petition. Such a course cannot be adopted for the reason that on 19-6-1981 when only the Subordinate Judge, Mahbubnagar, could entertain the petition, a petition presented before the District Munsif, Gadwal, cannot be treated as one presented before a Court having jurisdiction. In the absence of any provision for transfer of such cases following the amendment of sub-rule (2) of Rule 1, any such direction to continue the petition in the District Munsif's Court cannot be made. The petition should be proceeded with before a Court having jurisdiction and inasmuch as the Subordinate Judge's Court. Mahbubnagar, alone had jurisdiction to entertain O.P. 3/81 on 19-6-1981, the direction to present the same before that Court cannot be successfully assailed.