BAL REDDY Vs. RAJESWAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this case is whether the expression District Munsif occurring in rule 2 of the Rules for the Decision of Election Disputes made under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samiths and Zilla Parishads Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) includes ' Munsif-Magistrate.' The acts which give rise to this contention are that, the election of the President of the Mahboobnagar Panchayat Samithi was held on 20th April, 1963. The respondent herein was elected as the President of the said Panchayat Samithi. The election of the respondent was questioned through an election petition filed before the Munsif-Magistrate, Mahaboobnagar. The said election petition was filed on 31st May, 1963. Admittedly, the election petition was filed beyond the limitation prescribed for presenting such election petitions. The contention of the petitioner there was that, as the Munsif-Magistrate's Court was closed from 28th April, 1963 to 30th May, 1963 (both days inclusive), the election petition was filed on 31st May, 1963, which was the reopening day of the Court. No question of limitation, according to the petitioner, in such a case arises. The respondent, however, took two objections before the Munsif-Magistrate. Firstly, it was urged that the Munsif-Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the election petition and secondly that, as the Munsif-Magistrate is a persona designate and as he was functioning as a Magistrate and looking after the criminal work during those days although the civil side of the Munsif-Magistrate's Court was closed, the petition could have been filed within the prescribed limitation of 15 days from the date of the declaration of the election. After hearing the parties, the Munsif-Magistrate rejected the election petition holding that the Munsif-Magistrate is a persona designate and inasmuch as he was working on the criminal side, the election petition could have been filed within the prescribed period before him although the civil side of the Munsif-Magistrate's Court was closed during the time mentioned above. It is this order of the Munsif-Magistrate that is now challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The principal contention of Mr. Madhava Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the expression ' District Munsif' must necessarily mean in the context in which it is used the Munsif-Magistrate also. His contention is that, if this interpretation is not accepted, then it will produce extraordinary results in so far as Telangana area is concerned. It would mean that, although the election petitions are provided as a remedy to challenge the correctness of the election, no forum is provided except the one provided in clause 2 of rule 2. This argument poses the eternal conflict between a literal interpretation and a reasonable interpretation of the provision of law. I had occasion to consider this aspect in W.P. No. 971 of 1960 and I have held that, if a literal interpretation would result in absurdity, it should be avoided if, by giving the provision of law a reasonable construction, the purpose of the law can be achieved. I would keep the same principles in view in trying to find out a solution to the problem posed in this enquiry.

(3.) As far as 'the Act is concerned, there is no substantive provision which entitles the petitioner to question the election held under the Act. That is relegated to the rules. Under rule 1 of the Rules for the Decision of Election Disputes, it is stated that: