# Smt. Jyoti Singh v. Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 643
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-18
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 13501 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-jyoti-singh-v-smt-geeta-devi-ors-53950
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Dharnidhar Pandey, Kamal Kumar Singh,
Ram Karan, Sudhir Kumar Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Whether the election petition liable to be
rejected on the ground that the election petition
was not presented by the respondent personally
rather the same was presented
through
advocate and therefore, the election petition
ought to have been rejected by the tribunal in
view of the provisions of U.P. Zila Panchayat
(Settlement of Dispute Relating to Membership)
Rules, 1994

Head Notes
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Zila
Panchayat
(Settlement
of
Dispute
Relating
to
Membership) Rules, 1994, Sub Rule (3) of
Rule 4, Rule 11; The Constitution of
India,1950-Article 227; The Uttar Pradesh
Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act,
1961-Section
27;
The
Code
of
Civil
Procedure-1908-Section 26, Order IV;
General Rules Civil, 1957-Rule 32 & 35-
Once, the petition is filed through e-filing
mode, the person filing the petition has no
control over the petition as to when the
same will be taken by the concerned
Judge specially during the Covid period
when the physical presence of litigants as
well as lawyers was prohibited by the
orders of this Court. After the submission
of petition by the computer section it is
only when the petition was taken by the
District Judge and the District Judge fixed
date 12.07.2021 as the date fixed and has
also
called
for
a
report
from
the
Munsarim. Thus, 12.07.2021 will be the
date
on
which
the
petitioner
was
supposed to be present. In the present
case, the petitioner was present on
12.07.2021 before the Munsarim as the
Munsarim report bears signature of the
petitioner and finding of fact has been
recorded by the District Judge-Petition
dismissed.

Held- Election petitioner was present on
12.07.2021 and there is sufficient compliance of
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules,1994
specially considering the circumstance that
Covid pandemic was there in full swing in the
year 2021 and certain restrictions were imposed
by this Court regarding the presence of litigant
and counsel in the court proceedings- No
illegality has been committed by the court below
in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner
under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the
election petition. (E-15)
(Para 29,31 & 32)

Case Law Cited
Devendra
Yadav
v.
District
Election
Officer/District Magistrate, Mau reported in 2011
(9) ADJ 219; Jamal Uddin Ahmad v. Abu Saleh
Najmuddin and others reported in (2003) 4 SCC
257; Sumitra Devi v. Special Judge/Additional
District & Sessions Judge & others (Misc. Single
No. 9920 of 2018 decided on 12.06.2020)

List of Acts
The Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayat (Settlement of
Dispute Relating to Membership) Rules; The
Constitution of India,1950; The Uttar Pradesh Kshetra
Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961; The Code of
Civil Procedure-1908; General Rules Civil, 1957
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Keywords
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules,1994;
Petition not presented by the respondent
personally; Order VII Rule 11; Election petition

Case Arising From
Order dated 14.12.2023 passed by District
Judge, Basti in Election Petition No. 1 of 2022
rejecting the application filed by the petitioner
under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the
election petition.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Ashish Kumar Singh,
Rakesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dharnidhar Pandey,
Kamal Kumar Singh, Ram Karan, Sudhir Kumar
Mishra

## Text

_Characters 0–39,994 of 53,434. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39994 for what follows._

9 All. Smt. Jyoti Singh Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors.
643
the leave of the court. Even otherwise,
there is no delay in filing the appeal.

13. In view of the above, this petition
lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 643
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 13501 of 2023

Smt. Jyoti Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashish
Kumar
Singh,
Rakesh
Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Dharnidhar Pandey, Kamal Kumar Singh,
Ram Karan, Sudhir Kumar Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Whether the election petition liable to be
rejected on the ground that the election petition
was not presented by the respondent personally
rather the same was presented
through
advocate and therefore, the election petition
ought to have been rejected by the tribunal in
view of the provisions of U.P. Zila Panchayat
(Settlement of Dispute Relating to Membership)
Rules, 1994

Head Notes
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Zila
Panchayat
(Settlement
of
Dispute
Relating
to
Membership) Rules, 1994, Sub Rule (3) of
Rule 4, Rule 11; The Constitution of
India,1950-Article 227; The Uttar Pradesh
Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act,
1961-Section
27;
The
Code
of
Civil
Procedure-1908-Section 26, Order IV;
General Rules Civil, 1957-Rule 32 & 35-
Once, the petition is filed through e-filing
mode, the person filing the petition has no
control over the petition as to when the
same will be taken by the concerned
Judge specially during the Covid period
when the physical presence of litigants as
well as lawyers was prohibited by the
orders of this Court. After the submission
of petition by the computer section it is
only when the petition was taken by the
District Judge and the District Judge fixed
date 12.07.2021 as the date fixed and has
also
called
for
a
report
from
the
Munsarim. Thus, 12.07.2021 will be the
date
on
which
the
petitioner
was
supposed to be present. In the present
case, the petitioner was present on
12.07.2021 before the Munsarim as the
Munsarim report bears signature of the
petitioner and finding of fact has been
recorded by the District Judge-Petition
dismissed.

Held- Election petitioner was present on
12.07.2021 and there is sufficient compliance of
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules,1994
specially considering the circumstance that
Covid pandemic was there in full swing in the
year 2021 and certain restrictions were imposed
by this Court regarding the presence of litigant
and counsel in the court proceedings- No
illegality has been committed by the court below
in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner
under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the
election petition. (E-15)
(Para 29,31 & 32)

Case Law Cited
Devendra
Yadav
v.
District
Election
Officer/District Magistrate, Mau reported in 2011
(9) ADJ 219; Jamal Uddin Ahmad v. Abu Saleh
Najmuddin and others reported in (2003) 4 SCC
257; Sumitra Devi v. Special Judge/Additional
District & Sessions Judge & others (Misc. Single
No. 9920 of 2018 decided on 12.06.2020)

List of Acts
The Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayat (Settlement of
Dispute Relating to Membership) Rules; The
Constitution of India,1950; The Uttar Pradesh Kshetra
Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961; The Code of
Civil Procedure-1908; General Rules Civil, 1957
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Keywords
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules,1994;
Petition not presented by the respondent
personally; Order VII Rule 11; Election petition

Case Arising From
Order dated 14.12.2023 passed by District
Judge, Basti in Election Petition No. 1 of 2022
rejecting the application filed by the petitioner
under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the
election petition.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Ashish Kumar Singh,
Rakesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dharnidhar Pandey,
Kamal Kumar Singh, Ram Karan, Sudhir Kumar
Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar
Nigam, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Singh
and Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dharnidhar
Pandey, Shri Kamal Kumar Singh, Shri,
Ram Karan, Shri Sudhir Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the respondents and
perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 14.12.2023
passed by District Judge, Basti in Election
Petition No. 1 of 2022 rejecting the
application filed by the petitioner under
Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the
election petition.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
election for the post of member of Zila
Panchayat
was
held
on
29.04.2021.
Counting was done on 02.05.2021. The
petitioner
contested
the
election
for
member of Zila Panchayat for Ward No. 41
and in the counting held on 02.05.2021, the
petitioner was declared elected as member
from Ward No.41. Respondent no. 1 also
contested the election for Ward No. 41 but
was unsuccessful. Respondent no. 1 filed
election petition no. 1 of 2021 under
Section 27 of U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and
Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Act of 1961") before the
judge as provided under Section 27 of the
Act of 1961 on 30.06.2021. After being
noticed, the petitioner filed application
(Paper No. 73 Ga 2) for rejection of
election petition on the ground that the
election petition was not presented by the
election
petitioner/respondent
no.
1
personally. The petitioner also filed another
application (Paper No. 130 Ga 2) and
prayed that the order dated 13.07.2022
passed
by
the
election
tribunal
be
reviewed/recalled. From the facts
as
brought on record in the present writ
petition, it is apparent that election petition
was
filed
through
virtual
mode
on
30.06.2021. On 30.06.2021, following
order was passed:

आज यह चुिाि याचचका की पत्रािल
कम्प्यूटर अिुभाग से प्राप्त हुई।
आदेश

ग्राह्यता के बबन्दु पर सुििाई हेतु
पत्रािल पेश हुई। आिेददका की तरफ से कोई
उपक्स्थत िह ं है।

पत्रािल ग्राह्यता के बबन्दु पर
सुििाई हेतु ददिांक02.07.2021 को पेश हो।
नियत नतचथ तक मुंसररम अपिी आख्या
प्रस्तुत करें।"

4. On 12.07.2021, following order was
passed by the District Judge, Basti/Election
Tribunal:

"Case
called
out.
Learned
counsel for the applicant is present.
9 All. Smt. Jyoti Singh Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors.
645

Heard and perused the report of
Sadar Munsarim. As per report of Sadar
Munsarim, this election petition is time
barred by 25 days. Application paper no.
7c/2 along with affidavit paper no. 8c/2 has
been moved by the applicant u/s 5
Limitation Act to condone the delay in
filing the election petition.

Register as civil misc. case. Issue
notice to O.Ps. Steps be taken within a
week. Put up on 26.07.2021 for objection
and disposal of application paper no.
7c/2."

5.
On
12.07.2021,
Munsarim
submitted its report mentioning therein that
the petition has been filed with delay of 25
days. Munsarim report dated 12.07.2021 is
quoted as under:

आख्या

श्रीमाि जी,

प्रस्तुत चुिाि याचचका अन्तगमत
धारा 27 (2) (ए) (बी) उ०प्र० क्षेत्र पंचायत एिं
क्जला पंचायत अचध० 1961 सपदठत रूल-4
उ०प्र०क्जला पंचायत/सेदट मेन्ट आफ डिस्यूट्स
ररलेदटंग टू मेम्बरलशप रूल्स 1994, श्री बाल
कृटण चौधर एििोकेट द्िारा प्रस्तुत ककया
गया। चुिाि याचचका इस न्यायालय के
अचधकार सीमा क्षेत्र के अन्तगमत पयामप्त न्याय
शुल्क ि आदेलशका शुल्क सदहत 25 ददि
लमयाद बाहर दाणखल है। प्राथमिापत्र अन्तगमत
धारा-5 लमयाद अचधनियम ददया गया है।

चालाि फामम से सेक्योररट मिी मु0
250/- जररए चालाि जमा कर चालाि फामम
दाणखल ककया गया है। श्री बाल कृटण चौधर
एििोकेट का िकालतिामा दाणखल हे। मुसन्िा
पयामप्त है।

सादर

समचथमत ह०अस्पटट प्रशासनिक
अचधकार
ददिांक 12.07.2021"

6. Thereafter, several dates were fixed
and on 13.07.2022, the Munsarim report
was rejected by the District Judge,
Basti/Election Tribunal relying upon the
orders passed by the Supreme Court. The
order dated 13.07.2022, is quoted as under:

"ददिांक 13.07.2022

पत्रािल पेश हुई। पुकार करायी
गयी। उभय पक्ष के विद्िाि अचधिक्ता
उपक्स्थत। उभय पक्षों को, मुंसररम आख्या ि
आपवि प्रलेख संध्या 49ग2 पर सुिा गया।

याचचिी के विद्िाि अचधिक्ता
द्िारा मुंसररम आख्या पर आपवि प्रलेख संख्या
49 ग 2 प्रस्तुत कर मुंसररम आख्या ददिांककत
12.07.2021 को निरस्त ककये जािे की याचिा
ककया गया है एिं याचचिी के अचधिक्ता द्िारा
प्रलेख संख्या 54ग1/1 लगायत 54 ग1/22,
माििीय उच्चतम न्यायालय में योक्जत प्रकीणम
प्राथमिा पत्र संख्या 665/2021 SMW (C) No.
3/2020 IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR
EXTENSION OF LIMITATION में पाररत
आदेश की छाया प्रनत दाणखल ककया गया है।

माििीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के
उक्त आदेश के आलोक में याचचिी द्िारा
प्रस्तुत आपवि प्रलेख संख्या 49ग2 स्िीकार
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
करते
हुए,
मुसररम
आख्या
ददिांककत
12.07.2021 निरस्त ककया जाता है

अतएि मुंसररम को आदेलशत ककया
जाता है कक माििीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के
उक्त निणमय के आलोक में पुिः अपिी आख्या
प्रस्तुत करे। पत्रािल मुंसररम आख्या के साथ
िास्ते सुििाई ददिााँक 15.07.2022 को पेश हो।

जिपद न्ययाधीश

बस्ती।"

7. By order dated 14.12.2023, the
District Judge, Basti/Election Tribunal has
rejected the applications filed by the
petitioner being application No. 73 Ga 2
and 130 Ga 2 for rejecting the election
petition, hence, the present petition.

8. It has been contended by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the election
petition
was
not
presented
by
the
respondent no. 1 personally rather the same
was presented through advocate and
therefore, the election petition ought to
have been rejected by the tribunal in view
of the provisions of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 4
of U.P. Zila Panchayat (Settlement of
Dispute Relating to Membership) Rules,
1994, (hereinafter referred to as the "the
Rules, 1994").

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the election
petition was presented during the Covidpandemic period and because of the Covid
restrictions, the petition could have been
filed through e-filing mode. In the present
case, the petition has been filed through efiling mode and at the time when the
petition was entertained by the tribunal i.e.
on 12.07.2021, the petitioner was present
and therefore, it cannot be said that the
provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the
Rules, 1994 has not been complied with.
Learned counsel for the respondent has
invited attention of this Court to the order
dated 30.06.2021 passed by the tribunal
which has been quoted above and relied
upon the endorsement made before the
order that "आज यह चुिाि याचचका की
पत्रािल कम्प्यूटर अिुभाग से प्राप्त हुई।" On
30.06.2021, the petition was directed to be
put up for admission on 12.07.2021 along
with Munsarim report. Learned counsel for
the respondent further submitted that on
12.07.2021, the petitioner was present
along
with
his
counsel
before
the
Munsarim who has submitted the report on
12.07.2021 and therefore there is sufficient
compliance of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the
Rules, 1994.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that as per the law laid down by
this Court in case of Devendra Yadav v.
District
Election
Officer/District
Magistrate, Mau reported in 2011 (9)
ADJ 219, the petitioner has to be
personally present before the tribunal/judge
at the time of presentation of the election
petition and has further submitted that even
assuming
(though
not
admitted),
respondent no. 1 was present before the
Munsarim will not be in compliance of the
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994.
Learned counsel submitted that according
to Section 27 of the Act of 1961 read with
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994,
the petition is to be presented before the
Judge personally by the election petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that on 12.07.2021 it has been
mentioned by the tribunal that "case called
out. Learned counsel for the applicant is
present" which is indicative of fact that the
petitioner was not present before the court
9 All. Smt. Jyoti Singh Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors.
647
when the matter was taken up by the
tribunal. It has also been submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that
presence of election-petitioner (though not
admitted) before the Munsarim will not be
in compliance of Sub-rule 3 of Rule 4 of
the Rules, 1994. Presentation of election
petition before the Munsarim will not be
proper proper presentation of the election
petition as the Munsarim has only to
perform certain ministerial function such as
giving report etc. the presentation is only to
be made before Judge personally.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that according to Section 27 of
the Act of 1961, dispute if any regarding
election shall be referred to Judge. Sub-rule
(3) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994 only
requires that the election petition has to be
presented personally. It does not in so
many words mentions that election petition
has to be presented before the Judge
personally.
Learned
Counsel
for
the
respondent further submitted that as per
Rule 11 of the Rules, 1994, procedure
provided in C.P.C. regarding suits will be
followed in election petition, if the same is
not inconsistent with Act of 1961 or Rules
of 1994. Election petition can be validly
presented before the Munsarim in view of
the provision of C.P.C. and General Rule
Civil, 1957 for presentation of suits. The
election petition presented in person before
Munsarim will be in sufficient compliance
of the Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules,
1994.

12. Before considering the rival
submissions, it is relevant to note the
relevant provisions of the statute regarding
the election petition.

13. Section 27 of the Act of 1961
provides for resolution of dispute as to the
membership and disqualification. Section
27 of the Act of 1961 is quoted as under:

"27. Disputes as to membership
or disqualification. (1) If any dispute arises
as to whether a particular person is a
member of the Zila Panchayat under
[clause a] [Substituted by U.P. Act No. 9 of
1994.] of Section 18, the dispute shall be
referred in the manner prescribed to the
State Government and the decision of the
State Government shall be final and
binding.

(2) If a dispute arises as to
whether a person -

(a)has been lawfully chosen [x x
x] [Omitted by U.P. Act No. 9 of 1994.] a
member of a Zila Panchayat under Section
18; or

(b)has ceased to remain eligible
for being chosen [x x x] [Omitted by U.P.
Act No. 9 or 1994.] a member [x x x]
[Omitted by Section 17(2) of U.P. Act No. 2
of 1963.] of the Zila Panchayat for the
purposes of Section 20, or

(c)has become disqualified to be
Adhyaksha or [x x x] [Omitted by U.P. Act
No. 44 of 2007 (w.e.f. 20.08.2007).] for the
purposes of Section 19, the dispute shall be
referred in the manner prescribed to the
Judge whose decision shall be final and
binding."

14. Section 27 provides that dispute
shall be referred in the manner prescribed
to the judge whose decision shall be final
and binding. The procedure for filing the
election petition has not been prescribed by
the Act of 1961. The State of U.P. has
framed rules in exercise of powers under
Section 237 of the Act of 1961 read with
Sub-section (1) and Clauses A & B of Subsection (2) of Section 27 of the Act 1961,
namely, U.P. Zila Panchayat (Settlement of
Dispute Relating to Membership) Rules,
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1994. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994 provides
for manner of raising dispute as to whether
a person has lawfully chosen as member of
Zila Panchayat. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994
is quoted as under:

"4. Manner of raising disputes
under Section 27(2)(a) and (b)- (1) if a
dispute arises as to whether a person has
been lawfully chosen under clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of Section 18 the matter
shall be referred by means of a written
petition by any person who could legally be
a candidate at such choosing to the Judge
within thirty days of the date of choosing.

(2) If a dispute arises as to
whether a person has ceased to remain
eligible for being chosen a member, the
matter shall in the manner as provided in
sub-rule(1) be raised by any person whose
name is registered as an elector in the
Electoral
roll
for
the
territorial
constituency
of
the
concerned
Zila
Panchayat.

(3) Every petition under sub-rule
(1) or sub-rule (2) shall be presented in
person by the petitioner, and if there are
more than one petitioners by any or all of
them."

15. Rule 11 of the Rules,1994
provides for procedure for hearing of
election petition. Rule 11 of the 1994 Rules
is quoted as under:

"11. Procedure before the Judge.
(1) Except so far as provided by the Act or
in these Rules, the procedure provided in
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in regard to
suits shall in so far as it is not inconsistent
with the Act or any provisions of these
rules and it can be made applicable, be
followed in the hearing of the petitions:

Provided that-

(a) any two or more petitions to
the membership of the same person may be
heard together;

(b) the Judge shall not required
to record the evidence in full but shall
make a memorandum of the evidence
sufficient in his opinion for the purpose of
deciding the case;

(c) the Judge may, at any stage of
the proceedings; require the petitioner to
give further cash security for the payment
of the costs incurred or likely to be
incurred by any respondent;

(d) for the purpose of deciding
any issue, the Judge shall only be bound to
order production of or to receive only so
much evidence; oral or documentary as he
considers necessary; and

(e) any person aggrieved from the
decision of the Judge may apply for review
to the Judge within 15 days from the date of
the decision and the Judge may thereupon
review the decision.

(2) The provisions of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872)
shall, subject to the provisions of the Act
and these rules, be deemed to apply in all
respects in the proceedings for the disposal
of the petition."

16. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the
Rules, 1994 provides that every petition
under Sub-rule (1) & sub-rule (2) shall be
presented in presence of petitioner (election
petition) and if there are more than one
petitioner, by any one or by all of them.
The Rules, 1994 do not provide the manner
in which the election petition or the
authority before whom the election petition
has to be presented. Rule 11 of the Rules,
1994 provides that the procedure provided
in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with
regard to the suits in so far as it is not
inconsistent with the Act or any provision
of these Rules and will be applicable and
9 All. Smt. Jyoti Singh Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors.
649
followed in the hearing of the petition.
According to the Rule 11, the tribunal has
to follow the procedure as prescribed by the
C.P.C. for trial of suits except for otherwise
provided by Act of 1961 or the Rules,
1994.

17. Section 26 of the C.P.C. provides
for institution of a suit which is quoted as
under:

"26. Institution of suits.- (1)
Every suit shall be instituted by the
presentation of a plaint or in such other
manner as may be prescribed."

18. Order 4 C.P.C. provides that
commencement of suits by presentation of plaint.
Order 4 of the C.P.C. is quoted as under:

"ORDER IV
INSTITUTION OF SUITS

1. Suit to be commenced by
plaint-(1) Every suit shall be instituted by
presenting a plaint in duplicate to the
court] or such officer as it appoints in this
behalf.

(2) Every plaint shall comply with
the rules contained in Orders VI and VII,
so far as they are applicable.

(3) The plaint shall not be
deemed to be duly instituted unless it
complies with the requirements specified in
sub-rules (1) and (2).

2. Register of suits-The Court
shall cause the particulars of every suit to
be entered in a book to be kept for the
purpose and called the register of civil
suits. Such entries shall be numbered in
every year according to the order in which
the plaints are admitted."

19. Rule 35 of General Rules Civil,
1957 provides for Munsarim's duty in
respect of plaints, which is quoted as under:

"35. Munsarim's duty in respect
of plaints.- A Munsarim of a civil court
appointed to receive plaints shall examine
each plaint presented to him, and shall
report thereon whether the provisions of
the Code and the Court-fees Act, have been
observed, [*] [The word 'and' deleted by
Notification No. 396/VIII-b-203, dated 2-91971 (w.e.f. 30-7-1977).] whether the claim
is within the jurisdiction of the court,
constitutes a cause of action, and has been
presented within the period prescribed for
the institution of such a suit, [and whether
the plaint is otherwise in proper form
including that in a suit whether a notice
under Section 80, C.P.C., necessary, such a
notice has been given.] [Inserted by
Notification No. 396/VIII-b-203, dated 2-91971 (w.e.f. 30-7-1977).]

The Munsarim shall see that the
actual date of the presentation of the plaint
is entered upon the impressed stamp and
adhesive label, if any, below the date of
purchase endorsed on them.

On the back of all plaints the
Munsarim shall note-

(a)date of presentation of the
plaint;

(b)name of presenter;

(c)classification of suit; and

(d)court-fee paid."

20. It is also relevant to quote Rule 32
of the General Rule Civil which provides
time for presenting application and the
same is quoted as under:

"32.Time
for
presenting
applications.-
Except
as
otherwise
provided by these rules, applications and
petitions which can be presented to the
Munsarim of a court shall be received on
any day other than an authorised holiday
between 10.30 a.m. and such hour as may
be fixed by the court: Provided that an
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application or petition presented after such
hour and before 4 p.m. may be received on
the ground, if any, of limitation or other
urgent reason. Presiding Officers when
accepting plaints or applications after
court-hours will note on such papers the
time of their presentation."

21. Normally, as per C.P.C. and the
General Rule Civil, 1957 framed in this
regard, suit is presented during regular
court hours on a working day before the
Musnsarim who is authorized to receive the
plaints and has been given duty to examine
the plaint as provided under Rule 35 of the
General Rule Civil, 1957. Except in cases
covered under Rule 32 of the General Rule
Civil,1957 where the plaint or petition is
presented after normal working hours i.e.
10:30 A.M. to 04:00 P.M., may be received
on the ground, if any of the limitation or
other urgent reason, by the Presiding
Officer and on accepting the plaint or
application after the court hours and
Presiding Officer will note on such papers
and mention the time of presentation of the
application/plaint.
Thus,
from
the
combined reading of the Rule 35 read with
Rule 32 of the General Rule Civil, 1957 it
is apparent that normally, during the courts
hours, the plaint or petition is to be
presented before the Munsarim and only in
case of urgency or last day of limitation,
the petition may be presented before the
Presiding Officer who shall note time of
presentation, if he accept the same.

22. According to the petitioner, on
combined reading of Section 27 of Act of
1961 and Rule 4 of the Rules, 1994, the
election petition has to be presented before
the Judge. The Judge has been defined under
Sub-section 24 of Section 2 as District Judge
and includes any other sub-ordinates Civil
Judicial Officer named or designated by the
District Judge in this behalf.

23. It has been contended by learned
counsel for the petitioner that while
interpreting special statute which is a self
contained code, the court must consider the
intention of the legislature. The reason for
this fidelity towards the legislative intent is
that the statute has been enacted with a
specific purpose which must be measured
from the wording of the statute strictly
constructed. It has been further contended
that the election petition being special remedy
as provided under the statute and for the same
procedure has been prescribed in the
Rules,1994 and in view thereof the petition
has to be presented before the Judge and not
before the Munsarim taking aid of the
provisions of C.P.C. read with General Rule
Civil, 1957.

24.
The
election
tribunal
cannot
entertain an election petition which is not
presented before a Judge personally by the
election petitioner but has been presented
before the Munsarim as per the procedure
provided under the C.P.C. Consequently, the
presence of petitioner before the Munsarim
on 12.07.2024 when the report was submitted
by the Munsarim, is of no avail and is also
against the mandate of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4
of the Rules, 1994.

25. Learned counsel for the respondent
has submitted that in case, presentation has
been made in conformity with the procedure
prescribed by the C.P.C., and General Rule
Civil, 1957, no exception can be taken to its
validity because a suit has to be presented
before the Munsarim on a working day
between the court hours, the presence of
election petitioner before the Munsarim at the
time of presentation will
suffice the
9 All. Smt. Jyoti Singh Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors.
651
requirement of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the
Rules, 1994.

26. The argument as made by learned
counsel for the petitioner, prima-facie
appears to be very attractive but in view of
law laid down by the Supreme Court in
case of Jamal Uddin Ahmad v. Abu
Saleh Najmuddin and others reported in
(2003) 4 SCC 257, has no substance.
Identical argument was raised in case of
Jamal Uddin Ahamd (Supra) before the
Supreme Court in a matter arising from an
election petition filed before the Guwahati
High Court wherein as per the Rules of the
Court, the election petition was presented
before the Registry and the objection was
taken by the elected candidate that the
petition was to be presented as per the
Representation of Peoples Act before the
High
Court,
meaning
thereby
the
presentation has to be made either before
the Chief Justice or before a Judge
designated for the purpose of hearing the
election petition and could not be validly
presented before the Registry as per the
High Court Rules. Contention was repelled
by the Supreme Court in case of Jamal
Uddin Ahamd (Supra) and has held in
paragraph no. 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18 & 19, which are quoted as under:

"6. Developing their submissions
further, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants submitted that an election
petition has to be presented to the High
Court. Under Articles 214 and 216 of the
Constitution, there shall be a High Court
for each State and every High Court shall
consist of a Chief Justice and such other
judges as the President may from time to
time deem it necessary to appoint. The
Constitution and the Act do not provide for
or specify the person to whom an election
petition can be presented, and therefore, an
election petition should be presented either
to the High Court as defined by Articles
214 and 216 of the Constitution or at least
to the Chief Justice or to the Judge
designated by the Chief Justice as the
Election
Judge.
In
any
case,
the
presentation of an election petition to the
Stamp Reporter is wholly unwarranted and
unsupportable in law. The High Court does
not have jurisdiction to entertain and
decide on merits a petition which has been
presented to a Stamp Reporter, the
presentation itself being a nullity.

8. It was submitted on behalf of
the respondents that the presentation
having been made in conformity with the
Rules, no exception can be taken to its
validity. To this the learned counsel for the
appellants replied by submitting that the
only provision which empowers the rules
being framed under the Act is contained in
Section 169, which contemplates the rules
for carrying out the purposes of the Act
being made by the Central Government
after consulting the Election Commission
and by notification in the official gazette.
Inasmuch as the Central Government has
not framed any rules governing the
presentation of election petition the rules
framed by the High Court are invalid and
cannot be given effect to or looked into for
saving the validity of its presentation. It
was also submitted that the right to contest
for and hold an elective office is not a
common law right but a right conferred by
the Statute and so also the resolution of
election disputes is not a common law
remedy governed by ordinary law of the
land; it is a special statutory remedy
provided for by a special enactment, and
therefore,
any
departure
from
the
provisions of the Constitution or the Act
cannot be countenanced. The Court would
always be slow to interfere with the success
of a winning candidate at the election and
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an election petition which does not strictly
comply with the requirements as to its
presentation shall be liable to be dismissed
and thrown out by strictly interpreting the
law.

9. The question which arises for
decision is whether the High Court is at all
competent to frame rules making provision
for
receiving
the
election
petitions
presented to the High Court under Section
81 of the RPA; and if the High Court is not
competent to frame the rules, then whether
in the absence of any provision in the Act
or rules framed by the Central Government
specifying the person who is competent to
receive election petitions presented to the
High Court, no petition can be presented;
or, so long as there is no specific provision
can it be inferred by reading Article 329
with
Articles
214 and 216 of
the
Constitution that the election petition can
be presented only to the High Court in the
sense of the Chief Justice and other judges
constituting the High Court for the time
being sitting together to receive the
election petition.

10.
In
our
opinion,
the
controversy which has been raised is
devoid of any merit. It is pertinent to note
that in the RPA as originally enacted an
election petition could be presented to the
Election Commission and thereafter it was
to be tried by an Election Tribunal. Act
No.47 of 1966 has drastically amended
chapter II of RPA and with effect from
14.12.1966 the jurisdiction to try election
petitions has been conferred on the High
Court. High Court is a Court which was
pre-existing on the date of amendment
brought into being by Act No.47 of 1966. It
is a constitution Court and a Court of
record having plenary jurisdiction.

12. Undoubtedly clause (b) of
Article 329 of the Constitution speaks of an
election petition being presented to such
authority and in such manner as may be
provided for by or under any law made by
the
appropriate
legislature.
The
Representation of the People Act, 1951 is
such law made by the Parliament. Section
80A of the Act confers jurisdiction to try an
election petition upon the High Court. By
no stretch of imagination it can be said that
the "presentation" of an election petition is
part of the "trial" of an election petition.
Section 81 of the Act prescribes limitation,
the
manner
and
requirements
of
presentation and that the election petition
may be presented to the High Court. The
term "High Court" in Section 81 has been
used to denote an institution and not
literally the High Court as constituted
within the meaning of Article 216 of the
Constitution. It would be an absurdity to
assume that even though the election
petition can be tried by a single Judge of
the High Court in so far as presentation is
concerned it must be to the "High Court" in
the sense of the High Court consisting of a
Chief Justice and other Judges appointed
to the High Court (as contemplated by
Article 216), i.e. presented to the Chief
Justice and all the Judges sitting together.
It is equally absurd to assume that a single
Judge assigned or to be assigned with the
trial of an election petition must himself
receive the election petition. A Judge of the
High Court may be designated as an
Election Judge and assigned the trial of an
election petition subsequent to its being
received in the High Court. It may be that
the Chief Justice has not designated an
Election Judge under sub-Section (2) of
Section 80A of the Act until an election
petition was actually received in the High
Court. Who then would receive the election
petition? Do the Constitution and the RPA
expect
the
Chief
Justice
himself
to
discharge the ministerial act of receiving
9 All. Smt. Jyoti Singh Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors.
653
an election petition presented to the High
Court? Our answer is an emphatic 'no'.

13. The functions discharged by a
High Court can be divided broadly into
judicial and administrative functions. The
judicial functions are to be discharged
essentially by the judges as per the rules of
the Court and cannot be delegated.
However, administrative functions need not
necessarily be discharged by the judges by
themselves,
whether
individually
or
collectively or in a group of two or more,
and may be delegated or entrusted by
authorization to subordinates unless there
be some rule of law restraining such
delegation or authorisation. Every High
Court consists of some administrative and
ministerial staff which is as much a part of
the High Court as an institution and is
meant
to
be
entrusted
with
the
responsibility of discharging administrative
and ministerial functions. There can be
'delegation'
as
also
there
can
be
'authorization' in favour of the Registry and
the officials therein by empowering or
entrusting them with authority or by
permitting a few things to be done by them
for and or behalf of the Court so as to aid
the judges in discharge of the judicial
functioning. Authorization may take the
form of formal conferral or sanction or
may be by way of approval or countenance.
Such delegation or authorization is not a
matter of mere convenience but a necessity
at
times.
The
Judges
are
already
overburdened with the task of performing
judicial functions and the constraints on
their time and energy are so demanding
that it is in public interest to allow them to
devote time and energy as much as possible
in discharging their judicial functions,
relieving them of the need for diverting
their limited resources of time and energy
to such administrative or ministerial
functions, which, on any principle of
propriety, logic, or necessity are not
required necessarily to be performed by the
Judges. Receiving a cause or a document
and making it presentable to a Judge for
the purpose of hearing or trial and many a
functions post- decision, which functions
are administrative and ministerial in
nature, can be and are generally entrusted
or made over to be discharged by the staff
of the High Court, often by making a
provision in the rules or under the orders
of the Chief Justice or by issuing practice
directions, and at times, in the absence of
rules, by sheer practice. The practice
gathers the strength of law and the older
the practice the greater is the strength. The
Judges rarely receive personally any
document required to be presented to the
Court. Plaints, petitions, memoranda or
other document required to be presented to
the Court are invariably received by the
administrative or ministerial staff, who
would also carry out preliminary scrutiny
of such documents so as to find that they
are in order and then make the documents
presentable to the judge, so that the
valuable time of the Judge is not wasted
over such matters as do not need to be
dealt with personally by the Judge.

14.
The
judicial
function
entrusted to a Judge is inalienable and
differs
from
an
administrative
or
ministerial function which can be delegated
or performance whereof may be secured
through authorization.

"The judicial function consists in
the interpretation of the law and its
application by rule or discretion to the
facts of particular cases. This involves the
ascertainment of facts in dispute according
to the law of evidence. The organs which
the state sets up to exercise the judicial
function are called courts of law or courts
of justice. Administration consists of the
operations, whatever their intrinsic nature
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
may
be,
which
are
performed
by
administrators; and administrators are all
state officials who are neither legislators
nor judges"

(See
Constitutional
and
Administrative Law, Philips and Jackson,
Sixth Edition, p. 13). P. Ramnath Aiyer's
Law Lexicon defines Judicial Function as
the doing of something in the nature or in
the course of an action in court, (p. 1015).
The distinction between "Judicial" and
"Ministerial Acts" is:

"if a judge dealing with a
particular matter has to exercise his
discretion in arriving at a decision, he is
acting judicially; if on the other hand, he is
merely required to do a particular act and
is precluded from entering into the merits
of the matter, he is said to be acting
ministerially." (p. 1013-14).

Judicial function is exercised
under legal authority to decide on the
disputes, after hearing the parties, may be
after making an enquiry, and the decision
affects the rights and obligations of the
parties. There is duty to act judicially. The
judge may construe the law and apply it to
a particular state of facts presented for the
determination of controversy. A ministerial
act, on the other hand, may be defined to be
one which a person performs in a given
state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in
obedience to the mandate of a legal
authority, without regard to, or the exercise
of, his own judgment upon the propriety of
the act done (Law Lexicon, Ibid., p. 1234).
In ministerial duty nothing is left to
discretion; it is a simple, definite duty.
Presentation of election petition to the
High Court within the meaning of Section
81 of the Act without anything more would
mean delivery of election petition to the
High Court through one of its officers
competent or authorized to receive the
same on behalf of and for the High Court.
Receiving an election petition presented
under Section 81 of the Act is certainly not
a judicial function which needs to be
performed by a judge alone. There is no
discretion in receiving an election petition.
An election petition, when presented , has
to be received. It is a simple, definite duty.
The date and time of presentation and the
name of person who presented (with such
other particulars as may be prescribed) are
to be endorsed truly and mechanically on
the document presented. It is a ministerial
function simplicitor. It can safely be left to
be performed by one of the administrative
or ministerial staff of the High Court which
is as much a part of the High Court. It may
be delegated or be performed through
someone
authorized.
The
manner
of
authorization is not prescribed.

15.
The
High
Court,
in
authorizing an official to receive an
election
petition
either
by
collective
decision of all the Judges or under the
directions of the Chief Justice of the High
Court, does not 'delegate' any of its
functions much less a judicial function; it
merely 'authorizes' an official to do an act
incidental to the main judicial functional of
trial of an election petition which is
entrusted to the High Court exercisable
ordinarily by a single Judge of the High
Court assigned by the Chief Justice for that
purpose. Such authorization whether made
by rules of the High Court or by decision of
the Court or by an order of the Chief
Justice shall hold good unless there be a
provision to the contrary in the Act or in
the
rules
framed
by
the
Central
Government in exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 169 of the Act, which
there is none.

16. It is not disputed that the
Stamp Reporter is an official in the Gauhati
High Court and a necessary part of the
administrative staff performing functions of
9 All. Smt. Jyoti Singh Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi & Ors.
655
utility
and
responsibility
in
the
administrative set up.

17.