Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) The Petitioner had filed an election petition before the sub Divisional Officer, Baghpat, under Sec. 12 -C of the UP Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Sub Divisional Officer dismissed the petition on Dec. 11, 1957 with costs. In addition he awarded a sum of Rs. 200 as special costs against the Petitioner to the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. It is against that order that the present petition has been filed. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Sub Divisional Officer had the jurisdiction to pass an order awarding special costs. No other question has been raised in this petition.
(2.) Rules have been framed under the Act and are referred to as the Rules hereinafter. R. 25(2) reads as follows: 25(2). If the Sub -Divisional Officer after hearing finds in respect of any person whose election is called in question by the petition, that his election was valid, he shall dismiss the petition as against such person and may award costs at his discretion and in case he finds the application to be altogether frivolous he may also order that the security deposit shall in part or whole be forfeited to the Sabha concerned.
(3.) A perusal of the Act and the Rules clearly reveals that the Act taken together with the Rules provides a complete code with regard to the matters contained therein. It is common ground that there is no provision either in the Act or in the Rules under which special costs could be awarded and in order to support the impugned order Learned Counsel for the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had to fall back upon the provisions of S. 35A CPC. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has placed reliance upon R. 25(1) which reads as follow: 25(1). Subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules contained in this Chapter every election petition shall be tried by the Sub Divisional Officer, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the CPC, to the trial of suits". It has been contended that this provision makes the whole of the Code of Civil Procedure including S. 35A applicable to the trial of a petition under the Act and consequently the learned Sub Divisional Officer had the jurisdiction to award Rs. 200 as special costs. This argument ignores the words "as nearly as may be" occurring in R. 25(1). These words in my opinion, clearly indicate that, the rulemaking authority fully realised that it was not possible to make the entire Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings under the Act, because in several matters the Act was self contained and itself has provided its own procedure and substantive law and so far as the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are inconsistent with "what was provided in the Act or the Rules they could not be made applicable. In my judgment in as much as this question of cost has been fully provided for in R. 25(2) the provisions of that rule should be treated as exhaustive and it must be held that the Legislature did not confer on the election tribunal created under the Act the power to order the payment of special costs. I have reached this conclusion for two reasons. The first one is that the Act and the Rules are special provisions and if there is a conflict between the provisions of the Act and the Rules on the on hand and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or the other the former and not the latter would prevail. The second reason for coming to the conclusion is that the Rules exhaustively deal with matters of cost. It would be noticed that R. 25(2) provides for the awarding of costs and in cases when the ejection tribunal comes to the conclusion that the petition was entirely frivolous it has been provided that the security deposit shall in part or whole be forfeited to the Sabha concerned. For the situation for which S. 35A has been enacted in the Code of Civil Procedure , R. 25(2) has been framed in the Rules In other words, the counterpart of S. 35 A. GPC is Rule 25(2) in the Rules. In as much as the remedy against frivolous petition has been fully provided for by the Rules themselves, recourse to the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be had. In the case of Inamati Malappa Bamppa v/s. Desai Basavaraj Ajyappa : AIR 1958 SC 698 it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the Representation of People Act being a self contained Code covering the trial of election petitions the provisions of Or. 23 R. 1 Code of Civil Procedure would not apply to he proceedings in connection with the (sic)ria of an election petition notwithstanding S. 90(1) of the Representation of the People Act. In my opinion the Act and the Rules also provide a complete Code for the trial of election petitions under the Act and consequently the provisions of S. 35A, CPC, would not apply.;