TARACHAND GUPTA Vs. ANNAPURNA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed from the orders of fee First Additional District Judge at Indore on two election petitions, fee first (41) is an order of dismissal of fee petitioners' election petition under Rule 43 of fee Cantonment Electoral Rules in regard to an ejection to the Cantonment Board at Mhow. The other petition (No. 43 of 1965) is by fee elected member whose election to the same cantonment board has been set aside on an election petition by the defeated candidate who is opposite party No. 1 in this Court. While the facts in controversy in the two cases are different they have one common point of law which has been raised as a preliminary issue here and which alone is being decided at this stage.

(2.) THE question is whether a petition under Rule 43 of the Cantonments Electoral Rules can be enquired into and disposed of under Rule 45 by an Additional District Judge to whom the District Judge transfers it, there having been no notification by the State Government prescribing the rank of fee "subordinate Judicial Officer" to whom the petition can be so transferred.

(3.) THIS resolves into consideration of, firstly, whether the purport of the phrase "district Judge" used in Rules 43 and 45 is fee same as that of the words "district Court" used in certain other enactments, m particular, the Hindu Marriage Act of 1956, which has been the subject-matter of some rulings in this High Court; secondly, whether Rule 45 automatically empowers the District Judge without any notification by State Government to transfer to an Additional District Judge who may be of equal status m judicial matters though subordinate in respect of steps of a ministerial nature, or whether fee notification is necessary not only to prescribe the status of fee subordinate judicial officer to whom a transfer might be made, but to enable the transfer itself.