TMI Blog1973 (11) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The appellant and respondents 1 to 4 were candidates in the election to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Mhow constituency in indore district in March 1972. Respondent No. 4 , withdrew his candidature and the contest took place between the appellant and respondents 1 to 3. The result of the election was declared on March 12, 1972 and respondent No. 1 was declared elected. On April 25, 1972 the appellant presented an election petition under section 8 1 of the Act to the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the election of respondent No. 1 on various grounds. This election petition, which was numbered Election Petition 11 of 1972, and some other election petitions were entrusted by the then Chief Justice (Binshambhar Dayal CJ.) to Vyas J. The date of the order of the Chief Justice in this respect is not on the record before us, but it has been stated during the hearing that the order was made sometime in July or August 1972. Vyas J. in those days was sitting on the Indore Bench of the Madhya- Pradesh High Court. Surajbhan J. of the Madhya Pradesh High Court retired on February 2, 1971. After obtaini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In exercise of the said powers it is hereby of 1972 (Rana Natwarsingh v. Haribhau Joshi) and Election Petition No. 12 of 1972 (Satya- naryan v. Madhukar Marmat) shall be tried by the Hon'ble Shri Justice. Surajbhan Grover at the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. This order is in supersession of the earlier order dated 9th July, 1972, Election Petition No. 4 of 1972 (Vimal Kumar v. Thakur Virendra singh) and Election Petition No. 9 of 1972 (Mannalal v. Kanhaiyalal Nagori) shalt continue to be tried by the Hon'ble Shri Justice. S. R. Vyas at the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Sd/-P.K. Trare Chief Justice 20-8.73 In the meantime, proceedings in the election petition filed by the appellant continued before Vyas J. The last date of hearing in the petition before Vyas J. was August 22, 1973 when he made a formal order for filing reply to some interim applications and also issued directions that the record of the case be sent to, the Registry at Jabalpur for being, placed before, the Chief Justice. It may be stated that issues have, been framed on merit in this election petition but no eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the purpose of section 80A(2) of the Act. The second contention was that once the trial of an election petition had begun, the Chief Justice had no power under section 80A(2) of the Act to reallocate that petition to another judge. Both these contentions as well as the other two contentions, with which we are not concerned, were repelled by the High Court. In the result, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. On an application filed by the appellant, the High Court granted a certificate of fitness under Article 132 of the Constitution because, in its opinion, the case involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of article 224A of the Constitution. At the hearing of the appeal Mr. Sen has contended on behalf of the appellant, as was done in the High Court, that a person requested to sit and act as a judge of the High Court under article 224A of the Constitution is not a judge of the High Court for the purpose of section 80A of the 'Act and, as such, Surajbhan J, has no jurisdiction to try the election petition. It is further argued that, even if it may be assumed that Surajbhan J. is a judge of the High Court for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition calling in question any election has under section 81 of the Act to be presented to the High Court. Sub-section (1) of section 80A of the Act makes it clear that the Court which has jurisdiction to try an election petition shall be the High Court. High Court has been defined in clause (e) of section 79 of the Act to mean a High Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the election to which the election petition relates has been held. Sub-section (2) of section 80A of the Act provides that the jurisdiction which the High Court has to try an election petition shall be exercised ordinarily by a single judge of the High Court and the Chief Justice shall from time to time assign one or more judges for the purpose. It is plain that subsection (2) does not confer jurisdiction to try an election petition. Such jurisdiction is conferred by sub-section (1) of section 80A upon the High Court. Sub- section (2) merely specifies the instrumentality through which the jurisdiction which is vested in the High Court shall be exercised. The sub-section thus relates to the procedure for the exercise of the jurisdiction and provides that the jurisdiction shall be exercised ordinaril ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the previous consent of the President, request any per-,on who has, held the office of a judge of that Court or any other High Court to sit and act as a judge of the High Court for that State. It is further provided that every, such person so requested shall, while so sitting and acting, be entitled to sucks allowances as the President may by order determine and have all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of, but shall not otherwise be deemed. to be a judge of that High Court. According to the proviso to the article, no person would be required to sit and act as a judge of the High Court unless he consents so to do. It is manifest from a reading of article 224A that the request made by the Chief Justice to the person who has held the office of a judge of that Court or any other High Court is to sit and act as a judge of the High Court for that State. The article further makes it clear that the person while so sitting and acting shall have all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a judge of the High Court but shall not otherwise be deemed to be a judge of that Court. Analysing article 224A, it would follow that the request which is made by the Chief Justice of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the period for which a person has been requested to sit and act as a judge of the High Court, he has the juris- diction, powers and privileges of a judge of that Court. The language of article 224A, but for the difference in the marginal note, is similar to that employed in article 128 which relates to the attendance of retired judges at the sittings of the Supreme Court Indeed, article 224A was a part of the Constitution as originally framed. It was then numbered a,-, article 224. The language of the article was identical but its marginal note at that time read as Attendance of Retired Judges at Sittings of High Court . Article 224A was inserted by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act. 1962 and the marginal note of the article since then is Appointment of Retired Judges at Sitting% of the High Court . Both at modelled on section 8 of the Supreme Court of dating) Act. 1925 which relates to the Supreme Court of Judicature in England. According to section 8 of the English Act, the Lord Chancellor may at any time, subject to the provisions of this section. request any person who has held the office of the judge of the Court of Appeal or of a judge of the High Court to sit an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccepted, it would render article 224A to be a dead letter because the jurisdiction of the High Court can under the Letters Patent of the various High Courts as well as the other enactments which have been made in this connection can be exercised only through a judge of that' High Court. If a person ap- pointed under article 224A cannot be considered to be a judge of the High Court for the purpose of jurisdiction, powers and privileges, the question of appointing such a person would never arise. No one can obviously be asked to sit and act as a judge of the High Court if after being so requested, he would not be able to hear any cases. It is inconceivable that the framers of the constitution inserted an article in the Constitution which was in the nature of a dead letter. Any construction of article 224A which would have the effect of rendering that article to be ineffective and purposeless must, in our opinion, be rejected. As observed on page 36 of Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edition, a construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of a statute will normally be rejected. We are, therefore, of the view that a person reque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
