ORDER
S.C. Pandey, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 24-1-1996 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge at Sihora, District Jabalpur in M.J.C. No. 21/95.
2. The short and interesting question that arises in this civil revision is whether the respondent No. 1 could present the Election Petition Under Section 20 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (henceforth the Act) against the applicant before the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge at Sihora, District Jabalpur instead of filing it before the District Judge, Jabalpur.
3. The respondent No. 1 filed an Election Petition Under Section 20 of the Act challenging the election of the applicant to the office of the President, Municipal Council, Sihora. This Election Petition was presented directly in the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sihora, District Jabalpur.
4. The respondent No. 1 challenged the maintainability of Election Petition on the ground that Under Section 20 of the Act, the Election Petition could only be filed before the District Judge, Jabalpur as Sihora was within the revenue, district of Jabalpur.
5. This objection was rejected by the Court below. Hence this revision.
6. In order to decide the question, it is necessary to reproduce Section 20 of the Act which reads as under :-
“Section 20. Election petitions. – (1) No election or selection under this Act be called into question except by a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) Such petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 22-
(a) by any candidate at such election or selection; or
(b) (i) in the case of an election of Councillor, by any voter of the ward concerned;
(ii) in the case of nomination of Councillor, by any Councillor;
to the District Judge, where such election or selection is held within the revenue district in which the Court of the District Judge is situate, and in any other case, to the Additional District Judge having the permanent seat of his court within the revenue district in which such election or selection is held and if there be more than one such Additional District Judge within the said revenue district, to such one of them as the District Judge may specify for the purpose (hereinafter such District Judge or Additional District Judge referred to as Judge).
(3) No petition presented under Sub-section (2) shall be admitted unless,
(i) it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the result of such election or selection was notified in the Gazette; and
(ii) it is accompanied by a Government Treasury receipt showing a deposit of two hundred rupees, in the case of election or nomination to Municipal Councils and one hundred rupees in the case of election or nomination to Nagar Panchayats.
(4) A petition shall join as respondents to his petition –
(a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election or selection, as the case may be, of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected or selected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and
(b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition.
(5) An election petition shall –
(a) contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies;
(b) set forth with sufficient particulars, the ground or grounds on which the election or selection is called in question;
(c) be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), for the verification of pleadings.”
7. This revision is being decided on the assumption that the election petition lies Under Section 20 of the Act, as none of the learned counsel for the parties addressed this Court on the point if the election of President could be challenged by filing a petition Under Section 20 of the Act. For the aforesaid reason, nothing said in this order shall prejudice the right of the applicant to raise the ground that the petition is not maintainable Under Section 20 of the Act in case he is required to do so.
8. Section 20(1) of the Act provides that no election or selection under the Act can be challenged except by a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of that section. Therefore, in case, the petition is not presented in accordance with Section 20 of the Act, it is liable to be dismissed. The question that arises for determination is whether the language of Section 20(2)(b)(i) or (ii) permits presentation of petition in any place other than the Court of District Judge in a revenue district. The relevant portion of Clause (b) has to be analysed for this purpose. It says that “the election petition has to be filed to the District Judge where such election or selection is held within the revenue district in which the Court of District Judge is situate”. The first part of the relevant portion is that the petition challenging the election or selection has to be filed within the revenue district in which the Court of District Judge is situate. The second part of relevant portion says that in any other case to the Additional District Judge having the permanent seat of his Court within the revenue district in which the election or selection is held. The third part of the relevant portion says that if there be more than one such Additional District Judge within the said revenue district to such of them as District Judge may specify for the purpose. It is clear from the aforesaid, that in case any election or selection is held within the revenue district, the election petition has to be filed before the District Judge alone. The second and third part of the relevant portion discussed above are merely exception to the first part. The second part comes into play when there is no District Judge in the revenue district. This provision was made for the purpose that formerly a civil district and a revenue district did not coincide. Sometimes, two or three revenue districts would make a civil district. The legislature, therefore, provided that in such a contingency where an election is held in a revenue district but there be no District Court then the Additional District Judge at that place could entertain a petition and it was also provided that in case where there are more than one Additional District Judge then that Additional District Judge who was authorised by the District Judge, would entertain the petition. In that Court only, the election petition would be filed. In this particular case, the election was held within the revenue district of Jabalpur at Sihora. Therefore, the first part of the relevant portion would be applicable and for this reason, the election petition has to be filed before the District Judge, Jabalpur and not before the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge at Sihora, District Jabalpur.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the provision of Section 20(1) is mandatory and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 could not have filed the election petition at Sihora. In the decision reported in the case of Babulal vs. Dattatraya, 1971 MPLJ 765 at p. 773, para 7, it was observed as follows :-
“If the provisions of Section 20 of the M.P. Municipalities Act are considered in this background, it would be clear that the election petition is to be entertained by the District Judge or his delegate. This is made more clear in Section 20 under the provision which authorises the District Judge to nominate any of the Additional District Judges for this purpose if in the same Revenue District there are more than one Additional District Judge. In this view of the matter, it would follow that what Section 20 contemplates is that the election shall be entertained by the District Judge; and if the matter comes from another Revenue District, it shall be entertained by the delegate or the nominee of the District Judge and that this provision is made with a view to get the election petition disposed of within the geographical limits of a Revenue District, and nothing more.”
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in case, an election petition lies Under Section 20 of the Act, the same can only be challenged by filing a petition before the District Judge, Jabalpur and not at Sihora. It is, therefore, held that the election petition filed before the Additional District Judge, Sihora, District Jabalpur is not maintainable and, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed as it was not presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The impugned order dated 24-1-1996 passed in M.J.C. No. 21/95 is set aside. The revision, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. No costs.