9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (7) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken on his behalf to challenge the proceedings before opposite party No. 1. 2. The first two points that have been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner as two separate points can best be dealt with together as one single point. It has been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that three different election tribunals are functioning at Allahabad in order to hear election petitions. The persons appointed to the three election tribunals are Sri K. K. Banerji, retired Judge of a High Court, Sri P. K. Kaul, retired Judge of a High Court, and Sri G. D. Sahgal, a District Judge, as defined in Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended upto date. The two points which have been urged by learned counsel arising out of the above circumstance are firstly that there has been discrimination inasmuch as two of the tribunals are constituted by ex-Judges of High Courts, whereas one is constituted by a District Judge; and secondly that by appointing three different tribunals at Allahabad discrimination has been brought about between the petitioners in the various election petitions which have been entrusted to the different tribunals. The contention was that for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal cases and suits all over India, a number of Courts exercising concurrent jurisdiction have to be appointed within the same area. No one can claim that all cases arising in the same area and of the same nature must be tried by one single presiding officer and that the cases should not be distributed between various Courts. Similarly, High Courts are constituted by a number of Judges. For disposal of work in the High Courts, Judges sit singly as well as in Benches. Every day single Judges as well as two-Judge Benches sit for hearing of cases. But litigants in similar type of cases cannot claim that all their cases must be heard by the same single Judge or by the same Bench constituted by the same individual Judges. The right that is recognised by the Constitution merely is that all similar cases must be heard by a particular tribunal or Court exercising the same jurisdiction and the same powers and discharging the same functions. Due to the impossibility of having identical human beings, whenever a question of discrimination is examined, all that is taken into consideration is whether cases of a particular type are done by tribunals which exercise the same powers and discha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... election petitions against all candidates whether they belong to the Congress or to other parties were entrusted to District Judges except those candidates who have now been appointed as State or Central Ministers, in whose cases the election petitions have been entrusted to tribunals constituted by retired Judges of High Courts. From the information that was available to us as a result of scrutiny of the various notifications appointing election tribunals that could be produced before us, it appears to be likely that the second classification mentioned above has very probably been adopted by the Election Commission. This means that the Election Commission has entrusted to election tribunals constituted by retired Judges of High Courts all election petitions against State and Central Ministers whereas all other election petitions have been entrusted to tribunals constituted by District Judges. If this be so, it appears to us that the classification made by the Election Commission is not so discriminatory in nature as to be hit by the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. A discretion was granted to the Election Commission under Section 36 of the Representation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered it more expedient that election tribunals appointed for trial of election petitions against Central or State Ministers should be constituted by retired Judges of High Courts who would not be under the control of a State Government for the purpose of appointment, posting and promotion. It is, therefore, not possible to hold that in making appointments in this manner the classification adopted by the Election Tribunal was unreasonable or that it was not at all related to the purpose for which the various election tribunals were being appointed. This aspect of the case of course need not have been considered in view of our decision above that the differences amongst the individuals appointed for the purpose of constituting the tribunals are not to be treated as bringing in any discrimination at all when all tribunals exercise the same powers and discharge the same functions in all cases. But even in the alternative this contention raised by learned counsel fails and has to be rejected. 6. The second argument that all petitions at Allahabad should have been entrusted to one single tribunal also clearly has no force. Article 324 of! the Constitution, as we have mentione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lection petition in respect of an election which took place in the district of Allahabad which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. The appeal would therefore lie to this High Court from the decision of the election tribunal, so that there is no question at all that, in this case, the Election Commission by directing that the election petition of the petitioner shall be tried at Allahabad has in any manner conferred any appellate jurisdiction on this Court which this Court would not exercise under Article 225 of the Constitution. Further, even on merits, we consider that this contention has no force. The jurisdiction of a High Court is no doubt laid down in Article 225 of the Constitution and that Article read with other Articles of the Constitution indicates that the jurisdiction of a High Court is ordinarily confined to the limits of the State for which the High Court is constituted, though there are special provisions in the Constitution under which that jurisdiction can be altered. Section 116A of the Act is in conformity with Article 225 of the Constitution. The appellate jurisdiction of a High Court does not depend on the place where a cause of action may arise. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
