ORDER
Vaman Rao, J
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad dated 6-8-1998 passed in OP No.25 of 1996 deciding the additional issue holding that the said Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 233 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1990 read with Rule 2 of A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunal in respect of Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad and Zilla Parishad) Rules, 1995 filed by the petitioner who was defeated in the election.
2. The facts relating to the petition fall in a narrow ambit and may be stated briefly as follows :
As per the averments in the petition, under A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, Zilla Parishad was constituted for Adilabad District with its headquarters at Adilabad. Adilabad District was divided into territorial constituencies for election of members to the Zilla Parishad. One such Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency was constituted for Dandepalli Mandal. Elections were held on
6-3-1995 for the post of Member to the Zilla Parishad. The petitioner herein and the second respondent and two others contested for the said office. The petitioner was a candidate on behalf of the Telugu Desam Party and the second respondent contested on the ticket of Congress-I Party. The third candidate represented BJP and the fourth was an independent candidate. The petitioner was elected as Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency Member as he secured 9614 votes and the second respondent secured 9606 votes. The petitioner was duly declared elected as Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency Member on 12-3-1995 in view of his securing majority of 8 votes over the second respondent. Since then, the petitioner has been discharging his duties as ZPTC Member.
In the meanwhile, the second respondent filed Election Petition challenging the election in the District Court of Adilabad and the said petition was numbered as OP No.108 of 1995. The petitioner’s election was questioned on the ground that invalid votes polled were counted as valid votes in his favour and valid votes polled in favour of the 2nd respondent were also counted in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner herein as respondent in the said OP filed his counter taking among others the plea that the District Court at Adilabad had no jurisdiction to entertain the election petition and the petition cannot be adjudicated. It was also pleaded that the District Court had no power to transfer the election petition to the Sub-Court, Adilabad which was constituted for the first time on 27-1-1996 at Adilabad. There was no Sub-Court prior to that at Adilabad. The other allegations made in the election petition were duly denied by the petitioner herein and it was pleaded that no irregularities were committed in counting of the votes. It
may be mentioned that at the relevant time when the impugned order deciding the additional issue was passed, the election petition stood transferred to the newly established Sub-Court at Adilabad by the District Court.
The petitioner requested the Senior Civil Judge (Election Tribunal) to decide the additional issue “whether this Court has got the jurisdiction to try the petition”.
Two contentions were raised before the Senior Civil Judge, Firstly, that the Sub-Court, Adilabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition; Secondly that the District Court has no jurisdiction to receive the election petition and transfer the same to the Court of Senior Civil Judge (Election Tribunal) which was constituted only on 27-1-1996, whereas the election petition was filed in 1995 before the District Court, Adilabad. (It is also contended in this petition that the petition must be held to have been barred by limitation, though this plea does not appear to have been raised before the Senior Civil Judge as seen from the impugned order). The Senior Civil Judge (Election Tribunal) rejected these contentions and held that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the election petition.
3. The petitioner relies on Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution as amended by 73rd Amendment Act, 1992 which provides that no election to any panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. The Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 has been enacted pursuant to the above Constitutional provision. Section 233 of the Act stipulates that no election held under this Act shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf.
The Government under G.O. Ms. No.111 framed rules known as A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunal in respect of Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad and Zilla Parishad) Rules, 1995 (for short ‘the Rules’). Rule 2(i)(b) of the Rules, 1995 provides that the Sub-Court or if there is more than one Sub-Court at the Headquarters the Principal Sub-Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place in which the office of Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad as the case may be is located in respect of the election disputes and matters pertaining to the election of President, Vice-President and Members of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency, Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of Zilla Parishad Constituencies is the Election Tribunal.
4. It is thus contended that in view of this rule, only Sub-Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the election petition for the Members of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency. Proviso (a) to Rule 2(ii), however, enables the District Judge to transfer the petition to any other Subordinate Judge within his jurisdiction. Rule 2(3) mandates that an election tribunal exercising jurisdiction under these rules shall be deemed to exercise such jurisdiction as a person designated and not in his capacity as a Judge or another officer of the Government as the case may be. Rule 3 provides that the election petition shall be presented within 30 days from the date of declaration of result of the election. The plea of the petitioner is that contrary to these provisions and rules, the 2nd respondent filed election petition in OP No. 108 of 1995 in the District Court, Adilabad on 3-4-1995 within 30 days from the date of declaration of results on 6-3-1995. There was no Sub-Court at Adilabad and such a Court was constituted only on 27-1-1996 for the first time at Adilabad. The election petition was originally filed in the District Court and the District Judge after establishment of Sub-Court transferred the same to the
said Sub-Court at Adilabad which was renumbered as O.P. No. 25 of 1996. After the OP was transferred to Sub-Court, Adilabad, an additional issue was framed on 10-7-1996 as follows:
“Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to try the petition”?
As recorded by the Senior Civil Judge in the impugned order on the request of both sides, the additional issue was taken up for hearing on 15-7-1998, as a preliminary issue. In the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad held that the District Judge, Adilabad had jurisdiction to receive the election petition and also had power to transfer such election petition to another Tribunal (Subordinate Judge). The learned Subordinate Judge accordingly held that it has jurisdiction to try the election petition filed by respondent No.2 herein challenging the election of the petitioner herein who is respondent No.1 in the OP. It may be mentioned that at the admission stage, Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Mr. V. Ravindra Rao, Advocate for respondent No.2 appeared and it was agreed by all the Counsel concerned that as the question purely depends on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and rules, arguments will be advanced on the merits of the petition itself and accordingly arguments have been addressed in the writ petition.
5. The principal contention of the learned Senior Counsel, Sri M.V. Ramana Reddy, appearing for the petitioner is that as the District Judge did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the election petition, filing of the petition before the District Judge does not amount to filing the petition with the Election Tribunal as established under the relevant provisions of law. It is then contended that the District Court had no power to transfer the election petition to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad
(Subordinate Judge) which was established subsequently on 27-1-1996. Because of this, the learned senior Counsel submits that the election of the writ petitioner is unchallengeable as there is no provision made therefor.
6. There can be no dispute with such a plain interpretation of the relevant provisions extracted above but the difficulty arises in this case because of the fact that as on the date of filing of the election petition by respondent No.2 herein, there was no subordinate Court functioning at Adilabad District Headquarter inasmuch as no such Court was established.
7. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2, however, contends that as no Sub-Court was esyablished at Adilabad and as the District Court was the only Court having jurisdiction to entertain all matters which could normally be entertained by the Sub-Court had a Sub-Court been established there, the District Court must be deemed to be the Flection Tribunal established under Rule 2(2)(i)(b) of the Rules and filing of this petition in the District Court must be deemed to be valid filing within the prescribed period. It is also contended that at any rate by virtue of proviso to Rule 2(2)(ii) of the Rules, the District Judge concerned had the power to transfer the election petition from one Sub-Court to another Sub-Court and as the Sub-Court at Adilabad has since been constituted and as the election petition is now pending there, it must be held that the Subordinate Judge is the Election Tribunal having jurisdiction to try the election petition in this case.
8. A plain reading of the relevant provisions will no doubt indicate that it is only the Subordinate Judge who has been constituted as Election Tribunal for calling in question the elections to the post of a
member of Zilla Parishad. The consequences of such a plain interpretation of the provision under Rule 2(2)(i)(b) of the Rules would be:
(i) that the electors and the defeated candidates in relation to an election to the President, Vice-President and Members of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies; and Chairman and Vice-Chairman and members of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituencies would be deprived of their statutory right conferred under Section 233 of the Act to challenge the relevant elections;
(ii) such electors or defeated candidates are left with no remedy to challenge such an election whereas the defeated candidates and electors in the areas where Sub-Court is established will have such a right. Thus, the defeated candidates and electors of a particular area are discriminated when compared to similarly situated persons in other areas in respect of which Sub-Court has been established;
(iii) such an interpretation will result in an anomalous and unjust situation in which while the statutory provisions under the Act confer a right on a person but the delegated Legislation by way of rules frustrates and nullifies that right. Thus it violates the principle enshrined in the maximum ‘ibi jus ibi remedium’;
(iv) the electors at large of the area concerned will be deprived of any means to check the high handedness and irregularities in elections to Panchayat Raj institutions in a particular area for which no Election Tribunal has been designated. This would be unethical to the principle of democratic elections and will have
the tendency to encourage unethical and irregular methods in the conduct of elections.
9. It is difficult to conceive that the Legislature should have intended such grave and far-reaching consequences. In fact, the legislature by enacting Section 233 of the Act contemplated to provide a Forum for calling in question an election by filing an election petition before the authority prescribed under the Rules. It is the rule making authority which by oversight or otherwise seems to have failed to notice the fact that at the time of promulgation of rules there may be places where there is no Court of Subordinate Judge. In fact, it is not necessary that there should be a Subordinate Judge’s Court to be constituted compulsorily. In the absence of Subordinate Judge’s Court, the District Court assumes jurisdiction and that has been the situation in Adilabad District Headquarters, till the Subordinate Judge’s Court was constituted. While making a rule to effectuate the statutory remedy in Section 233 of the Act to avail the opportunity of challenging the election, the rule ought to be worked as ‘Subordinate Judge’ and if there is no Subordinate Judge’s Court, it is the principal Court of original jurisdiction. To that extent, the ommission on the part of the rule making authority must be deemed to be a violation of statutory provision itself. In interpreting a statutory provision or a rule, the presumption is that an absurd result is not intended. Similarly, there will be a presumption that a section of electors was not intended to be deprived of a right available to others similarly situated. It is observed in “Statutory Interpretation” by ‘Francis Bennion’ (2nd Edition published by Butterworths at Page 607) as follows:
“It is presumed that the legislator intends the Court to apply a construction which rectifies any error in drafting
of the enactment, where this is required to give effect to the legislator’s intention.”
10. Creation of the Courts and jurisdiction thereof, both territorial and pecuniary, is dealt with by A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972. Though it underwent a change with regard to matters of pecuniary jurisdiction, that was only in the year 1997 (A.P. Act 29 of 1997) and this case is only governed by the un-amended Act of 1972, as the matter relates to 1995. It was not necessary under the un-amended A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 that there should be a Subordinate Court in every District. In fact, it is a unique feature insofar as Adilabad District is concerned where there had been no Subordinate Court at all and even Additional District Judge’s Court, and for the entire Adilabad District there was only a Court of one District Judge which used to deal with all civil matters beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs. 5,000/- (under the Hyderabad Civil Courts Act). Even after the enactment of A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 by repealing the Madras Civil Courts Act and Hyderabad Civil Courts Act and making a uniform Act for the entire State of A.P., there had been no Court of Subordinate Judge in the District of Adilabad. Of late, a Court of Subordinate Judge was constituted at Nirmal but the town of Adilabad and its surroundings were not included therein. Thereafter, two subordinate Judges Courts were granted – one at Asifabad and another at Adilabad – with clear delineation of the areas comprised therein for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction. Till the creation of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Adilabad on 27-1-1996, all matters which were triable by a Court of Subordinate Judge were being tried by the Court of District Judge including the Additional District Judge at Adilabad. While other enactments provide a remedy before the Judicial Forum by naming it, the said nomenclature as a District Judge or
Subordinate Judge has to be understood only in the context of A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972. In fact, such an intention of A.P. Civil Courts Act to have overriding effect with regard to constitution of Courts and entrustment of jurisdiction is so evident, for instance, in Section 19 of the said Act with regard to jurisdiction to try the matters under Indian Succession Act 1925. That is in fact a sufficient answer to the contention of the writ petitioners. Under Indian Succession Act, 1925, the proceedings have to be initiated before the District Judge and the District Judge is defined in Section 2(bb), which reads “District Judge means the Judge of a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction” and evidently the relevant Rule under the Panchayatraj Rules referred to a Subordinate Judge and if there is more than one Subordinate Judge, it is the Principal Subordinate Judge, as in the year 1995 when the Rules were framed, Subordinate Judge’s Court or the Principal Subordinate Judge’s Court as the case may be was the Principal Court of civil Jurisdiction (on original side). This is, in fact, so clear and unambiguous from a reading of Section 16 of A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972 as it stood in the year 1995 and it is relevant to extract the said statutory provision.
“16. Jurisdiction of District Judge, Subordinate Judge and District Munsif in original suits and other proceedings :–(1) The jurisdiction of a District Judge or a Subordinate Judge shall, subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and of the other provisions of this Act, extends to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature.
(2) The jurisdiction of a District Munsif shall extend to all like suits and proceedings, not otherwise exempted from his cognizance under any other law for the time being in force the
amount or value of the subject matter of which does not exceed rupees twenty five thousand. The said section deals with the jurisdiction of District Judge, Subordinate Judge and District Munsif in original suits and other civil proceedings. While in sub-section (1) the jurisdiction of the District Judge and Subordinate Judge is provided, subsection (2) deals with the jurisdiction of a District Munsif. We are not concerned with the jurisdiction of District Munsif where the pecuniary limit is fixed at a maximum of Rs.25,000/-. We are more concerned about the jurisdiction of District Judge or Subordinate Judge and the word ‘or’ is very significant. There is no distinction made in the jurisdiction of a District Judge or Subordinate Judge and in fact, there is a concurrent jurisdiction to both the District Judge and Subordinate Judge to deal with all original suits and proceedings of civil nature. The instant Election Petition comes within the ambit of ‘original proceeding of civil nature’. There were no pecuniary limits provided in exercise of the jurisdiction by the Court of the Subordinate Judge to try all original suits and proceedings of civil nature and unlimited jurisdiction was conferred because of the notification issued under Section 15 of the said Act. But, insofar as Adilabad District Court was concerned, till 27-1-1996, according to the notification issued under Section 15 of A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972, the Court of District Judge was trying all original suits and proceedings of civil nature and absolutely there is no conflict or clash with the provisions of Rule 2 of A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunal in respect of Gram Panchayat, Mandat Parishad and Zilla Parishad) Rules, 1995 and the exercise of jurisdiction by the District Judge, Adilabad in view of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of A.P. Civil Courts Act, 1972,
as, in the absence of a Subordinate Judge, the District Judge was entitled to try OP No.25 of 1996 in accordance with the notification, which was issued by the Government after consultation with the High Court.
11. Apart from this, there is another aspect of the matter and another route by which also the same conclusions that the Subordinate Judge’s Court at Adilabad now has the jurisdiction to deal with the election petition challenging the election of the petitioner herein can be reached.
12. In the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Badam and others v. Union of India and others, 1998 (8) Supreme 342, it has been held that if a Court in which a suit is filed had no jurisdiction to take up the case on the date of plaint, it is sufficient if it acquires jurisdiction by the date of decree. In Ram Badan’s case (supra) the suit was instituted under Sections 59 and 61 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 on 16-11-1962 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, U.P. but the land in question stood transferred to U.P. only after 1968 Act was passed. The learned single Judge of the High Court held that the plaint was filed in a Court in U.P., which had no jurisdiction inasmuch as the lands were dejure part of Bihar State as on 16-11-1962 and the fact that subsequently after 1968 the area stood statutorily transferred by Section 3 of 1968 Act to U.P. State could not validate the plaint even if, as on the date of decree of the trial Court and the first appellate Court, the area might have come within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in U.P. On that reasoning, the High Court allowed the Second Appeal of 1974 by Judgment dated 7-5-1981 and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court in appeal after referring to the history of boundary disputes and to Section 26 of the Act observed that as on the date of decree, the 1968 Act came into
force and consequently, even the doubtful territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court stands rectified on the date when the decree was granted by the trial Court. It was held that the Act applied to the rights claimed thereunder and that the appellant, therefore, was entitled to the relief sought for in the suit. Thus, the Supreme Court restored the decree of the lower Court and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court in the case cited above expressed its agreement with that part of the judgement. It has been observed that the said conclusion of the trial Court was based on the assumption that by the dale of decree, the area stood transferred to U.P. State by the ‘Bihar and U.P. Alteration of Boundary Act, 1968’ and also on further assumption that the U.P. statute was territorially extended to the area in question by the date of decree of the trial Court. It was also observed that if those assumptions were true, the principle that was applied was correct. Thus, the Supreme Court held that if a Court in which a suit was filed had no jurisdiction to take up the case on the date of plaint, it is sufficient if it acquires jurisdiction by the date of decree. Thus, in this case also, as on the date when the question came up for consideration before the Sub-Court, Adilabad, it was the Election Tribunal constituted under Rule 2(2)(i)(b) of the Rules for the concerned area of Adilabad and as such, it had jurisdiction to entertain the election petition. Thus, as on the date of the impugned order, the Subordinate Judge’s Court at Adilabad was duly constituted as an Election Tribunal and, therefore, it has jurisdiction to deal with the election petition pending before him. Thus, taking any view of the matter, it has to be held that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.
13. In the result, we hold that the Senior Civil Judge, (Sub-Court), Adilabad must be deemed to be the Election Tribunal for trying the election petition filed by
Respondent No.2 calling in question the election of the petitioner and the proceedings in the said election petition now pending before the said Tribunal (Sub-Court) shall be continued in accordance with the rules and statutory provisions. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
