PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer:- "1. The impugned order dated 16.02.2015 passed by learned District Judge, Hanumangarh in election petition no.29/2015 may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. The order dated 14.11.2017 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Civil Judge (S.D.) Bhadra in Election Petition NO.01/2015 may kindly be quashed and set aside. 3. The election petition NO.01/2015 may kindly be ordered to remitted back to the learned District Judge, Hanumangarh for further hearing. 4. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent no.3 had filed an election petition before the learned District Judge, Hanumangarh under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act. The election petition was transferred by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra vide order dated 16.02.2015. The petitioner filed an application seeking the transfer of the election petition as per Section 43 of the Act of 1994 before the learned District Judge cum Civil Judge as the petitioner found that the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra was having the jurisdiction under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Yashoda v. Ashok Kumar and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10121/2015), decided on 04.01.2016 . The judgment reads as under:- "1. This petition is directed against the order dated 28.4.15 passed by the District Judge, Bikaner, whereby the election petition preferred by the respondent No. 1-Ashok Kumar questioning the election of the petitioner as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Sudsar, Tehsil-Sri Doongargarh, District-Bikaner, has been transferred for hearing and disposal to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per provisions of Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the Act"), the election petition filed questioning the election of the returned candidate, presented before the District Judge having jurisdiction can be transferred for the reasons to be recorded in writing for hearing and disposal to a Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) subordinate to District Judge concerned and thus, the order impugned passed by the District Judge, Bikaner, transferring the petition to the Additional. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner is sustainable in the eyes of law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that it appears to be an inadvertent error on the part of the District Judge in transferring the matter to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner and therefore, the order impugned may be set aside and the matter be remanded to the District Judge, Bikaner for passing an appropriate order afresh. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 5. Indisputably, as per the provisions of Section 43 of the Act, the election of a returned candidate may be called in question by any candidate at such election by presenting the election petition in the prescribed manner to the District Judge having jurisdiction and the District Judge is empowered to transfer the petition for hearing and disposal to a Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) subordinate to him, for the reasons to be recorded in writing. 6. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the petition filed has been transferred by. the District Judge to the Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) but to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner and thus, the order passed is ex facie erroneous. That apart, while passing the order transferring the matter, no reasons whatsoever have been recorded by the District Judge as per the mandate of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the order impugned is sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 28.4.15 passed by the District Judge, Bikaner is set aside. The District Judge shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order transferring the petition for hearing and disposal to the appropriate court in conformity with the provisions of Section 43 of the Act. No order as to costs.";