Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"To say that the authority for enquiring into the election petition is to be the District Judge or the Additional District Judge or a Civil Judge, First Class especially empowered and therefore the authority before whom an election petition is presented and who is trying acts as a persona designata is to deprive the phrase persona designata of all its real significance. The provision in Sub-section (4) that no appeal shall lie against the decision of the Judge on an election petition and the provision in Sub-section (5) that such decision would be open to revision by the High Court indicate that the Judges mentioned in Sub-section (2) function as Courts and not as persona designata. If these functionaries were intended to act as persona designata, then it would have been wholly unnecessary to provide that their decision would not be open to appeal or that it would be open to revision by the High Court, In that case, the decision would not have been either appealable or reusable as a matter of law. It is because that these authorities were required to determine election matters as Courts and as a part of their general jurisdiction that the Legislature thought it necessary to insert a provision that their decisions would not be appealable but open to revision. If Sub-sections (4) and (5) had not been inserted in Section 20-A, then the decisions of election Judges would have been, under the ordinary law, appealable as well as open to revision. Section 20-A (2) is an instance of enlargement of jurisdiction of Court subject to restrictions on the appealability of the decision. It seems to us necessary to dwell on the matter further. The present case belongs to the category of the cases reported in 1913 AC 546 and ILR 47 Mad 369 = (AIR 1924 Mad 561) (FB)."