LexJAMAL UDDIN AHMAD versus ABU SALEH NAJMUDDIN AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JAMAL UDDIN AHMAD A v. ABU SALEH NAJMUDDIN AND ANR. FEBRUARY 28, 2003 [R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] B Election Law: Representation of People Act, 1951-Sections 80, BOA, 81, 86 and 16! - Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 329, 214 and 216-Election Petition- C Presentation of before Stamp Reporter-Validity of-High Court Rules authorising such presentation-No law by Central Government or Parliament regarding the presentation-Held: Presentation of the petition to High Court would mean delivery of the petition to High Court through its .authorized officer-High Court having been conferred with the substantive jurisdiction to D hear and try an election petition, it is competent to make provision for all incidental and ancillary matters-Even in the absence of the P·tles High Court could have authorised its officer to receive the petition-The term "High Court" in Section 81 does not mean as constituted within the meaning of Article 216 -Hence, presentation of election petition to the Stamp Reporter is a valid presentation-Gauhati High Court Rules-Chapter VIII-A. E Judiciary-Ministerial function and Judicial function-Distinction between-Discussed. Interpretation of Statutes-Principle of interpretation-Irrationality perversity and hyper-technically are out of place while interpreting the Statutes F or testing the vires of legislation. Legal Maxim- 'Cursus Curia/ est lex Curiae '-Explained-Practice and Procedure. Respondent challenged the election of appellant to the legislative G assembly of Assam. The election petition under Section 80/81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 was presented before Stamp Reporter of the High Court of Assam. Thereafter, the petition was put up before Designated Election Judge. Appellant filed an application raising preliminary objection as to maintainability of the petition on the ground 473 H 474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R. A that the presentation before the Stamp Reporter was invalid under Section 81 of the Act. Designated Election Judge, relying on Chapter VIII-A of Gauhati High Court Rules, held that the election petition was properly presented. In appeal to this Court, respondents contended that presentation B having been made in conformity with the High Court Rules, no exception could be taken to its validity. Appellants contended that since Constitution of India as well as the Act do not provide for or specify the person to whom an election petition C can be presented, the petition should be presented either to the High Court as defined by Articles 214 and 216 of the Constitution or at least to the Chief Justice or to the Judge designated as the Election Judge; that High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide on merits of petition presented to a Stamp Reporter, the presentation itself being a nullity; and that the only provision which empowers the Rules being D framed under the Act is contained in Section 169 which contemplates the Rules being made by the Central Government and in as much as the Central Government has not framed any Rules, ihe Rules framed by the High Court are invalid and cannot be given effect to for saving the validity of its presentation. E Dismissing the appeals, the Court F G HELD: 1.1. Presentation of an election petition to the Stamp Reporter of the High Court of Gauhati is a valid presentation. The Designated Election Judge has rightly overruled the preliminary objection preferred by the respondent. [494-B) Abdul Jabbar v. Syeda Anwara Tajmur and Ors., (1986) 1 GLR 257; Shri Melhupra Vero v. Shri Vamuzo, (1990) 1 GLR 290; Shri Saingura v. Shri F. Sapa and Ors., (1990) 2 GLR (NOC) 48 and Nawab Khan v. Vishwanath Shastri, AIR (1993) Allahabad 104, approved. 1.2. The·functions discharged by a High Court can be divided broadly into judicial and administrative functions. The judicial functions . are to be discharged essentially by the Judges as per the rules of the Court and cannot be delegated. However, administrative functions need not necessarily be discharged by the Judges by themselves, whether H individually or collectively or in a group of two or more, and may be · I ' J.U. AHMAD v. ABU SALEH NAJMUDDIN 475 delegated or entrusted by authorization to subordinates unless there be A some rule of !aw restraining such delegation or authorization. There can be 'delegation' as also there can be 'authorization' in favour of the Registry and the off
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.