BHOJRAJ KRISHNARAO KHADE 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 in 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 represented before the new authority.

(3.) IN our opinion, it is plainly a question of the language of the statute. Section 20 -A (2) reads as follows: Such petition shall be presented 'to' the District Judge 'or' Additional District Judge 'or to' a Civil Judge especially empowered by the Provincial Government in this behalf within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the election or selection was held and no petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within fourteen days from the date on which the result of such election or selection was notified. (Underlining by us)