Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) These writ petitions have come before us on a reference made by our brother Seth by means of an order dated 4th November 1963. The questions raised before us are purely of law which are common to both the writ petitions (Nos. 3769 and 3770 of 1963). In both the cases the petitioners and the non official respondents are rival candidates at an election held to elect the Pramukhs of the Kshettra Samitis concerned. Both the petitioners were declared elected. Whereupon election petitions were filed challenging their elections. By means of the writ petitions before us it has been prayed that orders in the nature of writ of prohibition be issued by this Court commanding the learned Civil Judges concerned not to proceed with the hearing of the election petitions.
(2.) We have heard Mr. C. S. P. Singh for the petitioners and Mr. S. C. Khare for the non official respondents. Mr. Singh has made the following three submissions before us: (1) That there being no provision in the U.P. Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for an election petition, no petition could be filed, and in any case if Section 7 of the Act is invoked in support of Rule 35 which permits filing of an election petition, Section 7 is invalid on the grounds that it permits delegation of essential legislative functions. (2) That Section 7 of the Act is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India being discriminatory in nature there being no legislative guidance for the rule making authority to frame the rules. (3) That in any case there being no specific rule providing grounds on which election petitions can be filed the provisions of Rule 35 are unenforceable and unadministerable with the result that no election petition could be filed. We will take the submissions seriatim:
(3.) Mr. Singh has contended that under the provisions of section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code a Civil Court is competent to entertain a suit of a civil nature including one in respect of an election matter and that the only limitation on the power of the civil court to entertain such a suit can be provided by a special legislation curtailing the jurisdiction of the civil court to investigate into such matters. It is urged that there is nothing in the Act which takes away that vast jurisdiction of the civil court and there is nothing to show that a civil court cannot entertain a suit either for the declaration that a particular person is elected Adhyaksh or for the declaration that he is not. Mr. Singh further proceeds by saying that there being no restriction on the powers of the civil court and there being nothing in the Act relating to an election petition the result of a rule framed by a subordinate authority would be to defeat the provisions of Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code which is a Central Act passed by a legislative body. Putting differently, the argument is that the effect of the rule is to repeal the provisions of Section 9 of the Code so far as election disputes under the Act are concerned. In our judgment, there is no substance in this submission. It is wrong to assume that there has been any repeal of the provisions of the Code. The entire effect of Section 7 read with Rule 35 of the Act is to provide that regarding elections of Adhyakshas of Kshettra Samitis not the civil court but the election tribunal will decide the matter. The view that we are taking finds support from Hari Shanker Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 465.;