HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.R.P.No.799 of 2007 Date:26-08-2011 Between: Mir Zulfeqar Ali ……… Petitioner And Teegala Kirshna Reddy and others …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.R.P.No.799 of 2007 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 14-12- 2006 in Election O.P.No.536 of 2002 on the file of the Chief Judge- cum-Election Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The Revision petitioner herein is the petitioner in O.P.No.536 of 2002. He filed the petition under Section 71(1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Tribunal praying to order recount of the votes polled; to hold that the first respondent is guilty of a minor corrupt practice; to declare the election of the first respondent to the Mayoralty of Hyderabad as void; and to declare that the petitioner is duly elected as Mayor of Hyderabad. After filing the petition, the learned Chief Judge-cum-Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, made over the petition to the III ACJ, for disposal, through the order dated 14-12-2006. Being aggrieved, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly urged that when the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is constituted and designated as Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, under Section 75 (1) of the Act, the Court has no authority as Election Tribunal to delegate its powers to III ACJ by making over the case for disposal and the same is erroneous. 4. Though the respondents are served, there is no representation on their behalf. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the docket order, dated 14-12-2006 is sustainable? POINT: 6. As seen from the impugned order, on 14-12-2006 the learned Chief Judge made over O.P.No.536 of 2002 to the III ACJ for disposal and posted the matter on 19-01-2007. O.P.No.536 of 2002 was filed by the contesting Mayor to Hyderabad Municipal Corporation against the first respondent requesting the Tribunal to declare the election of the first respondent as void, while declaring him as duly elected Mayor of Hyderabad. 7. Under Section 75(1) of the Act, ‘Election Tribunal’ is defined as under: “75. Election Tribunal:-- (1) The Government may, for the purpose of providing speedy disposal of election petitions in respect of an election petitions in respect of an election under this Act, appoint any person who is or has been or is eligible to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court as an Election Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) for such period as may be necessary, for trial of petitions in respect of an election under this Act: Provided that if there are only a limited number of such cases, the Government may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification specify a Court of District Judge to be an Election Tribunal to try the election petitions under this Act.” 8. Further, the Registry of the High Court also addressed a letter dated 11-03-2002 in ROC.No.1136/E1/2002 to the Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, (Election-II) Department, Government of A.P., Hyderabad, informing that the Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, gave His Lordships concurrence for specifying the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and Principal District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry to be Election Tribunals respectively to try the Election Petitions pertaining to the Municipal Corporations of Hyderabad and Rajahmundry. Along with the said letter, the Registry also enclosed two copies of each of the draft notifications contemplated under Section 75 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1988. 9. By virtue of the letter of the Registry, dated 11-03-2002, and by virtue of Section 75 of the of the Act, the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is constituted and designated as Election Tribunal to deal with the matters relating to the elections concerning Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. By virtue of specifying the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad as the Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, no other Courts are empowered to try the cases relating to the elections concerning Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Therefore, the order dated 14-12-2006 passed by the Chief Judge-cum-Election Tribunal, City Civil Court, making over O.P.No.536 of 2002 to the III ACJ, is contrary to Section 75 of the Act and also to the proceedings of the High Court, dated 11-03-2002, and hence, the same is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 10. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner represented that by virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner could not prosecute his course of action in the said O.P. and requested that a direction may be given to the Tribunal for disposal of the matter expeditiously. 11. Therefore, the Chief Judge-cum-Election Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is directed to take up the O.P. on file and dispose of the same, in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both sides, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of ten (10) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned docket order, dated 14-12-2006 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. No order as to costs. _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 26-08-2011 YCR