M.K. Mukherjee, C.J. - (1.) ASSAILING a final order passed by the Special/Additional District Judge, Pilibhit on an election petition presented Under Section 19 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 ('Act' for short), the Appellants filed a writ petition before a learned Judge of this Court. By an order dated May 6, 1992, the learned Judge rejected the writ petition and aggrieved thereby the Appellants have filed this Special Appeal.
(2.) WHEN the appeal is taken up for hearing on the question of its admission, a threshold question as to its maintainability is raised on behalf of the Respondents relying upon the provisions of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the Court. It is submitted on their behalf that while dealing with an election petition Under Section 19 of the Act the District Judge functions as a tribunal and therefore the appeal is not maintainable in view of the embargo therein. In repelling the above contention Mr. Khare, the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants, submits that the District Judge while dealing with, an election petition under the Act functions as an 'authority' as envisaged under the above Rule and not as a tribunal and therefore this Special Appeal is maintainable.
(3.) TO properly appreciate the respective contentions of the learned Advocates it will be necessary to reproduce Rule 5 which is as under:;