JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THESE four writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by one judgment as the same question of law arises in them. The petitioners are Pradhans of Panchayat Samitis, Bairath, Kotputli, Bassi and Jhotwara respectively whose elections have been challenged under sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959, which runs as follows : - "13. Dispute as to election under sec. 12.- (1) The election of a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of a Panchayat Samiti may be called in question by any member thereof by presenting in the prescribed manner to the Judge a petition in this behalf on the prescribed grounds and within the prescribed period. (2) A petition presented under sub-section (1) shall be heard and disposed of in the prescribed manner and the decision of the Judge thereon shall be final. " Under sec. 2 (6) "judge" means - (a) the District Judge sitting at the place where the principal office of the Panchayat Samiti is situated, or (b) where there is no such District Judge, the Civil Judge so sitting, or (c) where there is no such Civil Judge also, any other Civil Judge specially empowered in this behalf by the District Judge having jurisdiction.
(2.) BAIRATH, Kotputli, Bassi and Jhotwara are in Jaipur District. The District Judge of that district sits at Jaipur. No other place of sitting of the District Judge has been appointed under sec. 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance. No Civil Judge sits either at BAIRATH or at Kotputli, or at Bassi or at Jhotwara. The election petitions in all these cases were presented to the District Judge, Jaipur District, who himself proceeded to try them. During the trial an objection was taken by the petitioners that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to try the election petition) as under sec. 2 (6) (c) it can only be tried by a Civil Judge specially empowered by the District Judge. This objection was overruled by the District Judge. Against that order the present writ petitions have been filed and the contention of the petitioners is that the District Judge has no jurisdiction to try the election petitions. On behalf of the election petitioners Mr. P. N. Datt argued that when the District Judge is authorised to empower a Civil Judge to try an election petition he can himself try it. In my opinion in the case of an election petition relating to a Panchayat at the principal office of which there is no District Judge or Civil Judge sitting the election petition can be tried only by a Civil Judge nominated by the District Judge and not by the District Judge himself. The District Judge is empowered to nominate the tribunal but has not been empowered to try the election petition in such a case. I accordingly issue a direction to the District Judge, Jaipur District not to try these election petitions himself but to nominate a Civil Judge to try them. He shall send these election petitions to the Civil Judge concerned along with a copy of his order nominating him as a Judge u/s. 2 (6) (c) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 so that these election petitions are presented before him as soon as the order appointing him is communicated. The petitions will not be barred by limitation as the Tribunal will be treated as being closed within the meaning of sec. 4 Limitation Act during the period during which it was not in existence. In this connection I may refer to the decision of this Court in Bajrang Lal vs. Suraj (S. B. Civil Writ No. 411 of 1966, decided on July 27, 1966 ). In that case the Munsif of Sawai Madhopur who alone was competent to try an election petition under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act was on leave when the limitation for filing the election petition expired. The election petition was presented to the Reader who was not competent to receive it as under the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules the petition could only be presented before the Munsif. The Munsif took cognizance of the petition on return from leave. It was held that the court of Munsif, Sawai Madhopur should be treated as being closed within the meaning of sec. 4 of the Limitation Act so long as it was vacant. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed as indicated above. In the circumstances of the case I leave the parties to bear their own costs of these writ petitions. . ;