Civil Revn. Case No. 26 of 1962. Case: Thokchom Amubi Singh Vs Laisram Thanil Singh.
| Case Number | Civil Revn. Case No. 26 of 1962 |
| Counsel | For Petitioner: R.K. Manisana Singh, Adv. and For Respondent: R.K. Jhalajit Singh, Adv. |
| Judges | T. N. R. Tirumalpad, J.C. |
| Issue | Assam Municipal Act (15 of 1957) (as extended to the State of Manipur) - Sections 16, 17, 18; Manipur (Courts) Act (56 of 1955) - Sections 18(2) , 20, 2(iii) |
| Citation | AIR 1964 Manipur 35 |
| Judgement Date | June 26, 1963 |
Order:
-
This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Manipur, dated 5-10-1962, by which he over-ruled the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner herein that the Additional District Judge had no power to hear the Election Petition filed before the District Judge by the respondent.
-
In the last Municipal Election, in which the petitioner and the respondent were the contesting candidates for Ward No. 12 of the Imphal Municipality the petitioner was declared elected. The respondent thereupon filed a petition before the District Judge as provided under Section 16 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 as extended to Manipur, to set aside the said election. At that time Shri O. Thambal Singh, was the officiating District Judge and he framed the issues in the case. Subsequently, he became the Additional District Judge on the appointment of Shri M.H. Khan as the District Judge. When this matter came up before Shri M.H. Khan, on 31-7-62, he passed an order that as the issues have already been framed by the Additional District Judge, when, he was officiating as District Judge the case was transferred to the file of the Additional District Judge. Thereafter the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge to enquire into the Election Petition was raised before him by the petitioner and after hearing arguments the Additional District Judge held on 5-10-62 that he had jurisdiction to enquire into the petition. Against the said order this revision petition has been filed.
-
The argument of the petitioner was as follows: Under Section 16 of the Assam Municipal Act, the Election Petition had to be filed before the District Judge of Manipur and it was accordingly filed before the District Judge. The procedure to be adopted and the powers of the Judge in holding the enquiry are provided in Section 17 of the said Act, according to which the District Judge or any Judicial Officer subordinate to him and not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge other than an officer exercising the powers of a Subordinate Judge ex-officio to whom the District Judge may transfer the petition, may after holding such enquiry as he deems necessary. In accordance with the prescribed procedure and subject to the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 pass an order confirming or amending the declared result of the election or setting the election aside.
It was pointed out that under Section 17(1), either the District Judge or a Subordinate Judge to whom the District Judge may transfer the petition alone can hold the enquiry and it was further pointed out that under Section 17(4) an appeal shall lie to the District Judge from any decision or order of a Subordinate Judge, if the case was dealt with by a Subordinate Judge. It was therefore contended that the District Judge cannot transfer the petition to the Additional District Judge, but only to a Judge, subordinate to the District Judge or the District Judge has to hear the petition himself. It was pointed out that under Section 17(4) a decision or order of the District Judge was final, whereas if it was a decision of a Subordinate Judge an appeal would lie to the District Judge. Thus, the transfer to the Additional District Judge was without authority as it was against the provisions of the statute and as it would deprive the parties of an appeal to the District Judge as provided in the statute.
In support of the said contention, the Supreme Court decision in Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 391, the decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court in J.B. Mangharam and Co., Gwalior v. K.B. Kher, (S) AIR 1956 Madh-B. 183 and the decision of the Punjab High Court in Janak Dulari v. Narain Dass, AIR 1959 Punj 50 were relied on.
-
It is better that I give the relevant portions of Sections 16 and 17 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, as applied to Manipur:
16 - "Proceedings to set aside an election - If the validity of an election of a Commissioner is brought in question by an unsuccessful candidate or person qualified to vote at the election to which such question refers, such person may, at any time within twenty-one days after the date of the declaration of the result of the election, file a petition in the prescribed manner before the District Judge of Manipur and shall at the same time deposit one hundred rupees in Court as security for the costs likely to be incurred:
X X X X X X
X X X X X X
17 - "Procedure and powers of Judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial