BHOJRAJ Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case comes before the Division Bench on a reference by Bhutt, J. The facts of the case sufficiently appear from the order of reference and need not be stated again. The reference involves consideration of two questions. They, are as follows :

(2.) UNDER Section 20-A (2) of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, an election petition is to be presented to the District Judge or Additional district Judge or to a Civil Judge especially empowered by the Provincial government is this behalf. The first question is whether the special empowering is to be only of the Civil Judge or also of the District Judge and the Additional District judge. The second question involves a notification issued by the State Government by which all Judges of the Courts of Civil Judge, Class I, were empowered to hear such election petitions. By the Madhya Pradesh Courts (Amendment) Act, 1956, the distinction between Civil Judges, Class I, and Civil Judges, Class II, has been abolished. The point raised by the learned Single Judge is whether a new notification should issue and whether the election petition would not be time-barred if re-presented before the new authority.

(3.) IN so far as the first point is concerned, Rao, J. held in Purshottam v. G. V. Pandit, 1950 Nag LJ 520: (AIR 1950 Nag 212) (A), that the words "especially empowered by the Provincial Government in this behalf" qualify not only Civil judge, but also District Judge and Additional District Judge. The case decided by eao, J, was reversed in a Letters Patent Appeal reported in Dr, G. V. Pandit v. Dr. P. V. Deshmukh, ILR (1952) Nag 352: (AIR 1952 Nag 283) (B), but not on this point. In Madan Lal v. Laxrnichand, Civil Revn. No. 607 of 1956, D/- 15-10-1957 (C), chalurvdi, J. took a different view of the matter, though he did not refer to any earlier authority on the subject. According to Chaturvedi, J. . the words quoted from the Section above qualify the words "civil Judges" only. In Janardan v. Hiralal, 1957 MP LJ 170 (D), Naik, ]. held by implication that the words qualify all three.