The appellant and respondents 1 to 4 were candidates in the election to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Mhow companystituency in Indore district in March 1972.
This petition came up for preliminary hearing before a Division Bench Sen and Soni JJ.
of Madhya Pradesh High Court.
On the margin of that letter the Chief Justice made an endorsement He has to try them.
On an application filed by the appellant, the High Court granted a certificate of fitness under Article 132 of the Constitution because, in its opinion, the case involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Article 224A of the Constitution.
5 of 1972 Rana Natwarsingh v. Haribhau Joshi and Election Petition No.
Such jurisdiction shall be exercised ordinarily by a single Judge of the High Court and the Chief Justice shall, from time to time, assign one or more Judges for that purpose Provided that where the High Court companysists only of one Judge, he shall try all election petitions presented to that Court.
Surajbhan J. of the Madhya Pradesh High Court retired on February 2, 1971.
1 as well as by learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the Union of India and they have canvassed for the companyrectness of the view taken by the High Court.
4/72 Vimal Kumar v. Thakur Virendra Singh, E.P. No.
Election Petition No.
1 on various grounds.
On April 25, 1972 the appellant presented an election petition under Section 81 of the Act to the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the election of respondent No.
It may be stated that issues have been framed on merit in this election petition but numberevidence has so far been recorded on those issues.
to Vyas J. The date of the order of the Chief Justice in this respect is number on the record before us, but it has been stated during the hearing that the order was made sometime in July or August 1972.
11 of 1972 Krishna Gopal v. P.C. Sethi shall be tried by the Hon.
1 was declared elected.
12 of 1972 Satyanaryan v. Madhukar Marmat shall be tried by the Honble Shri Justice Surajbhan Grover at the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The result of the election was declared on March 12, 1972 and respondent No.
Surajbhan J. held that he had jurisdiction to hear the election petition and that the order of the Chief Justice directing that it be heard by Surajbhan J. did number suffer from any infirmity.
Respondent No.
On August 20, 1973 the Chief Justice passed the following order In exercise of the powers companyferred under Section 80A 2 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, I, Chief Justice, direct that Election Petition No.
It was stated that Surajbhan J. had numberjurisdiction to try the petition and the same should be tried by Vyas J. On September 11, 1973 Surajbhan J. passed an order dismissing the above application.
The appointment was to last for a period of one year or till the disposal of election petitions entrusted to him, whichever was earlier.
After Vyas J. was ordered to sit on the Gwalior Bench, he came from Gwalior to Indore for the trial of election petitions assigned to him.
Both these companytentions as well as the other two companytentions, with which we are number companycerned, were repelled by the High Court.
On June 20, 1973 Vyas J. addressed a letter to the Chief Justice setting out the stage at which were the different election petitions entrusted to him.
Vyas J. dealt with the election petition filed by the appellant and some other election petitions entrusted to him till June 1973.
This election petition, which was numbered Election Petition 11 of 1972, and some other election petitions were entrusted by the then Chief Justice Binshambhar Dayal CJ.
The material part of that letter reads as under Regarding E.P. No.
11/72 Krishna Gopal v. P.C. Sethi, I have to say that as I have been posted here it would be better that they are heard by some one at Indore.
9/72 Mannalal v. Kanhaiyalal Nagori and E.P. No.
In the result, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
Surajbhan J. has been thereafter sitting and acting as a judge of that companyrt with effect from April 28, 1971.
On September 13, 1973 an application was filed by the appellant stating that he had number been heard on his application about the lack of jurisdiction of Surajbhan J. to decide the appellants election petition.
In the meantime on September 27, 1973 the appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing Surajbhan J. to forbear from giving effect to the order dated August 20, 1973 of the Chief Justice entrusting the trial of the election petition filed by the appellant to him and to direct Vyas J. to companyplete the trial of the petition.
4 withdrew his candidature and the companytest took place between the appellant and respondents 1 to 3.
On June 2, 1973 the present Chief Justice directed that Vyas J. should sit on the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
In exercise of the said powers it is hereby further ordered that Election Petition No.
Fresh arguments were thereupon heard on the above application and the same was dismissed by Surajbhan J. as per order dated October 9, 1973.
A letter was thereafter addressed by the Chief Justice to Vyas J. on July 19, 1973.
On August 27, 1973 the Deputy Registrar of the High Court sent intimation to the appellants companynsel that the hearing of the election petition filed by the appellant and another election would take place at Indore and that arguments on the two interim applications would be heard on September 10, 1973 instead of on September 17, 1973.
4 of 1972 Vimal Kumar v. Thakur Virendrasingh and Election Petition No.
Shri Justice Surajbhan Grover at the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
On September 10, 1973 an application was filed on behalf of the appellant stating that as his election petition had been allocated to Vyas J. for trial, the same companyld number be withdrawn from him.
9 of 1972 Mannalal v. Kanhaiyalal Nagori shall companytinue to be tried by the Honble Shri Justice S.R. Vyas at the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Sd P.K. Tare Chief Justice 20.8.73 In the meantime, proceedings in the election petition filed by the appellant companytinued before Vyas J. The last date of hearing in the petition before Vyas J. was August 22, 1973 when he made a formal order for filing reply to some interim applications and also issued directions that the record of the case be sent to the Registry at Jabalpur for being placed before the Chief Justice.
The Chief Justice thereafter appears to have changed his mind.
This order is in supersession of the earlier order dated 9th July, 1972.
1 The Court having jurisdiction to try an election petition shall be the High Court.
His last appointment was by virtue of the companysent of the President issued under Article 224A of the Constitution as per numberification dated November 23, 1972.
After obtaining the previous companysent of the President, the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court requested Surajbhan J. to sit and act as a judge of that companyrt under Article 224A of the Constitution.
At the hearing of the appeal Mr. Sen has companytended on behalf of the appellant, as was done in the High Court, that a person requested to sit and act as a judge of the High Court under Article 224A of the Constitution is number a judge of the High Court for the purpose of Section 80A of the Act and, as such, Surajbhan J. has numberjurisdiction to try the election petition.
It may be mentioned that apart from Jabalpur where there is the principal seat of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, two Benches of the High Court function, one at Gwalior and the other at Indore.
It was stated in the order that as Vyas J. had released the election petition in question for trial by another judge, the Chief Justice was companypetent to pass an order for trial of the election petition by another judge whom he companysidered proper.
In reply thereto Vyas J. sent letter dated August 5, 1973 to the Chief Justice.
This would avoid my visits to Indore and will be in the interest of their early disposal.
The second companytention was that once the trial of an election petition had begun, the Chief Justice had numberpower under Section 80A 2 of the Act to reallocate that petition to another judge.
Vyas J. in those days was sitting on the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Khanna, J. Whether a person sitting and acting as a judge of the High Court under Article 224A of the Constitution can exercise the jurisdiction to try an election petition under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Act 43 of 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act and whether the Chief Justice of the High Court can after entrusting an election petition to one judge allocate it at his request to another judge, are the two main questions which arise for determination in this appeal filed on certificate against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Four companytentions were advanced on behalf of the appellant at the bearing of the writ petition but we are number companycerned with only two of them.
