KRISHAN GOPAL versus SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA & ORS.

206 KRISHAN GOPAL v . . SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA & ORS. November 8, -1973 · I[A. ][N. ][RAY, ][C.J., ][H. ][R. ]AND [KHANNA, ]P. N. BHAGWATI, [K. K. ][MATHEW, ]JJ.] [A. ][ALAGfRISW.~~ ]B Conslltmion of India-Art. 224A-Wflcrher a11 Od hoc judge [111]J~e of 11~ High Court. Article 224A of the Constitution provide<.> t_ha;. notwithsta!'ding ~ytbmg contained in Chapter V of Part VI of !!'• Con;;tttuuoo. th~ Ch,ef Josue.: of High Court for any State may at any umc. Wltl> the prev~ous consent of the President, request any person who has held th_e office of J'!dge of !bat Court or any other Hii:h Court to sit and act as JUdge of the H1gb. Court for !hal ·Sate. It 1s further provided that every such pe"'on so ""ques~d sh>l~ while ,0 sitting and actir.tz, be entitled to. su.cl>. allowances as the P_re_:;ident mly by -order determine and have all the Junsd•cllon, powers and pnvtloges of "bur shall ool otherwise be deemed to be- judse of that High Court". ' The appellant's election petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court was posted, in the first instance, before permanent Judse of that High OJurt. In the meantime retired Judge of tha~ High Court was appointed as Ju~ge -of that Court in accordance wnh the provisions of Art. 224A of the Constltu-D tioo and the election Jl"tition of !he appellant, along with few other e'te· tion petitions, was transferred to bim for di<posaL The writ Jl"lition of the appellant questioning the juri..Jictioo of !he Judge to try an election petition ·was dismissed by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court it w:.s contended (i) th:.t person reque•ted to ·•it and •<:t as Judge or the H1ib Court under Art 224A was not Judg:o of the Hrsh Court for the purpose of a. 8() .\ of the Represenmtion of tho Peep~ Act ar.d (ii) that even ~ming that he was Judge for the purpose of s. 80A of the Ac~ the election petition could not, after it had been entrwted 1o p,rmaneo! Judge, be allocated to Judge appointed under Art. 224."'-Di•posinJt of the appeal • HEI,D : It is in::onc.:ivab!e that the (rumen of the Constitution inserted 1.11 >~rt1de •n. the Constitution which w"" in the onturo of ,.. ueaJ letter. t\ny c:on,trucuon ?f Art, 224A which would have the effect of rendering tb•[1 ]F arutle 10 "'' and to be act rr.efTect.ve •• Jud!IC and of purpo<ele,. the High mmt Court be under rei<'cted. Art. l24A person Judge requo:sted of that Court for the purpo<c o{ •ub-1. (2) of •· 80A of tho AcJ. [!lolG·Hl -of State. prevY::;rc~~ 0 Hioh The co: rt Judge t[224]0 /' 'lithe Pr.:."dent, to Ch_ief Sit and Justice act requests as of 11 n Judge High p:non of Court, who the Hi~h has after Court held obtaining the tor o thai ~ho ee penon juri.diction •hoiJ not :::~ oth ':;:;t"'ted,_w· pbcnv• 1 cges wh1lc of <0 n sitting Jud~-e ~nd of the a:tir>!l, High shall Con~ bave Sue._ all hth: Fl cr '"' ~cemeu l<> bo u Judge of that Court. [~ L1D " not TI1e merely hao wocds •while the juriw' 10 ~~tune • • and acting" •how that tl>e . ,.._,rmn requ~~h not Court. otherwi~e he nho be Iii>! <kemtd •nd .'~ ~ wn. ns powers Jud~e nr<l of that privile~eo Court. of The Judk'C word• of ~but !h< \:co ~ 11 nat relating to jurisdiction ° be [0 ]Judge of th~l Court .. lndkate th:.t '" '"'\,J •~:!ll not be d<emcd to be • powers ond prh·itcge• the pen<on so . 1"\',quc'"IJ lcJII', poont ro the per>on reque$1td tl~e cordu>ion th:. ;h ~odge~[ ~ 1 lC [of ]purpo'C [that ][Court. ]of furi,dlction, [The ][woru ][••otherw"c ]pov.'C" rn [J ]["~,·i· ]r a"J [H ]for PU'J'O•es other than tho .~ ~ l_udse of tho concern<d Hish C.ror ,.;,n rrqllt!lcd •ball not be eemed se of to be Jllmdittlun; Judge of powc..., th:~t nnd Court. privilot;<'S, Tho use tho of pc ·tit• .........., --JII-----~ ... -.~

..........,

W?rd "deemed" sho~s tha: the person who sits and acts a'9 Judge of the Huth ~o~ut urt.l~r th1s Artie!'! is Ju:lge of the said High Court bu~ by legal fict1on he IS not to be considered to be Jud·8e of the High Court for purposes other tha:~ those relating to ju:isdiction, powe"S and privileges. The words "but shall DOl otherwise be deemed to be Judge of t:hat High Court" ~Y .ne~~sary implication CJ?~hasise and highlight the fact that for purposes ·of JUrJSd!chon, powers and priVIleges the person requested under Art. 224A is Judge of the High Court concerned. The effect of the non-obstante :lause at the begipning of Art. 224A is tha~ notwithstanding th~ other provisions of Chapter V of Part VI of the Constitution, the person requested under Art. 224A would sit a.nd act as Judge of the High Court ard would have the 'jurisdiction, powers and privileges of Judge of that Court. The difference in the language of Arts. 224 & 224A would not detract from the conclusion that. person requested under Art. 224A sits and a.:ts as Judge of the High Court for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction, p!)wel'! and privileges, Articles 224 & 224A deal with different matters. [212H; 213A-D; 2148] (ii) There is nothing in the language of s. 80\ of the Repre~ntation of People Act which stood in the way of the Chief Justice relieving Judge from the task of trying the election ~titian which had been earlier entrus!W to him. [215Cl

Zlkar v. The State I.L.R. 1951 Nag. 251 held not applioable.

OVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1555 of 1973. 0 From the Judgment and Order dated the 1st October 1973 of the ,,

From the Judgment and Order dated the 1st October 1973 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench at Indore in Miscellaneous Petition No. 206 of 1973.

B. Sen, R. C. GarK. Fazal Hussain and S. K. Gambhir, for the appellant. ·

M. C. Setalvad, J. B. Dadachanji, Ram Panjwani, U. N. Bachawat and T. T. Kunhikannan for Respondent No .. 1.

Sobhagmal Jain for Respondent No.· 4.

1. N. Shroff for Respondent No. 8.

F. S. Nariman Additional Solicitor General for India, and S. P. Nayar for Respondent No. 9.

The Judgment. of the Court was delivered by-

KHANNA, J.-Whether person sitting and acting as judge of the High Court under article 224A of the Constitution can exercise the jurisdiction to try an election petition under section 80A of the Repre· sentation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951) (hereinafter refer-red to as the Act) and whether the Chief Justice of the High Court can after entrusting an election petition to one judge allocate it at his request to another judge, are the two main questions which arise for determination in this appeal filed on certificate 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 res-

SVPREME COURT REPORTS

pondents 1 to 3. The result of the election was de~lared on March 12., 1972 and respondent No. 1 was declared elected. On April 25, 1972 the appellant presented an election petition _under section 81 of the Act to the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the election oL 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 Febru-ary 2, 1971. After obtaining the previous consent of the President~ the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court requested Surajbhan J. to sit and act as judge of that court under article 224A of the Constitution. Surajbhan J. has been thereafter sitting and acting as judge of that court with effect from April 28, 1971. His last appoint· ment was by virtue of the consent of the President issued under article 224A of the Constitution as per notification dated November 23, 1972. of the Constitution as per notification dated November 23, 1972. The appointment was to last for period of one year or till the disposal of election petitions entrmted to him, whichever was earlier.

judge of that court with effect from April 28, 1971. His last appoint· ment was by virtue of the consent of the President issued under article 224A of the Constitution as per notification dated November 23, 1972. of the Constitution as per notification dated November 23, 1972. The appointment was to last for period of one year or till the disposal of election petitions entrmted to him, whichever was earlier. Vyas J. dealt with the election petition filed by the appellant and some other election petitions entrusted to him till June 1973. On June 2, 1973 the present Chief Justice directed that Vyas J. should sit on the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. It may be men· tioned that apart from Jabalpur where there is the principal seat of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, two Benches of the High Court func-tion, one at Gwalior and the other at Indore. After Vyas J. was order· ed to sit on the Gwalior Bench, he came from Gwalior to Indore for the trial of election petitions assigned to him. On June 20, 1973 Vyas J. addressed letter to the Chief Justice setting out the stage at which were the different election petitions entrusted to him. letter was ther.e~ after addressed by the Chief Justice to Vyas J. on July 19, 1973. In reply thereto Vyas J. sent letter dated August 5, 1973 to the Chid Justice. The material part of that letter reads as under :

"Regarding E.P. No. 4/ 72 Vimal Kumar Vs. Thakm-Virendra Singh, E.P. No. 9172 Mannalal Vs. Kanhaiyalal Nagori and E.P. No. 11/72 Krishna Gopal Vs. P. C. Sethi, I have to say that as I have been posted here it would be better that they are bear~ by some one at Indore. This would avoid my visits to Indore and will be in the interest of their early disposal. I request accordingly."

On the margin of that letter the Chief Justice made an endorsement "He has to try them". The Chief Justice thereafter appears to have changed his mind. Op August 20, 1973 the Chief Justice passed the follow· ing order:

"In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 80· A(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, I, Chief

Justice, direct that Election Petition No. 1_1 of 1972 (Krishna Gopal v. P. C. Sethi shall be tried by the Hon. Shri Justice S~ajbhan Grover at the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

ln exercise of the said powers it is hereby further ordered that Election P€:tition No . . S 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'b~e;: Shn '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 (Vimai Kumar v. Thakur Yirendrasingh) and Election Petition No. 9 of 1972 (Mall· nalal v. Kanhaiyalal Nagori) shaH continue to be tried by the Hon'bic Shri Justice S. R. Yyas at the Indore Bench of the Madhva Pradesh High Court

Sdj·P.K. Tare Chief Justice 20.8 .73"

o ln th~ 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 August22, 1973 when he made formal order for filing reply to some interim applications and also issued direc-tions· 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 evidence has so far been recorded on those issues. · ·

On August 27, 1973 the Deputy Registrar of the High Court sent intimation to the appellant's COU!lSei that the hearing of the election . petition filed by the appellant and another election would. take place. at Indore and that arguments on the two interim applications would be heard on September 10, 1973 instead of on September 17, In3. On Sepiember 10. 1973 an application wits filed on bchatf of the ap· pellant stating that ~s his dectlon petition h:Jd been allc~.:ated to Vyas J. for trial; the same could not be withdrawn froll1 him. .It was stated that Surajbhan J. had no jurisdiction to try th9 petition and the same should be tried by Vyas J. On September 11, 1973 Surajbhan J. pass~d an order dismissing .the above application. It was stated in the order that as Vyas J. had rel~ased the election petition inquestion for triill by another juqge, the Chief Justice was competent to pass an order for· trial of the. election petition by another judge whom he considered pro· per. On September 13, 1913 an application was liled by the appellanl stating that he had not been heard ou hi.s application about the lack of jurisdiction of Surajbhan J. (o.decide the appellant's election petition, Fresh arguments were therei1pon heard on the above application and the same was dismlssed by Surajbhan .1. as per mdcr dated October 9, 11. 1973. Surajh~an J. held that he had jurisdiction to hear the election pe-tition and that the order of the Chief Justice directing that it be heard by Surajbhnn J. did itot suffer from any infirmity. . . .

In the meantime on September 27, 1973 the appellant filed peti· tion under article 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of wnt of mandamus directing Surajbhan J. to forbear from giving effect to the order dated August 20, 1973 of the Chief Justice entrusting the trial of the election petition filed by the appellant to him and to direct Vyas J. to complete the trial of the petition. This petition came up for preli-minary hearing before Division Bench (Sen and Soni JJ.) of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Four contentions were advanced on behalf of the appellant at the bearing of the writ petition but we are now concerned with only two of them. The first contention was that person sitting and acting as judge of the High Court under article 224A of the Cons· titution was not ''a judge of the High Court" for 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 J usfice 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 certificate of fitness under Article 13 2 of the Constitution becau~e, in its opinion, the case involved 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 person requested to sit and act as judge of the High Court under article 224A of the Cousti· tution is not judge of the High Court for the purpose of section 80A of the Act and, as such, Surajbhan J. has oo jurisdiction to try the election petition. It is further argued that, even if it may be assumed that Surajbhan J. is judge of the High Court for the purpose of section 80A of the Act, the election petition filed by the appellant could not, after it had been entrusted to Vyas J ., be allocated by the Chief Justice to Surajbhan J. So far as the latter contention is concerned, we may state that the certificate of fitness which was granted under article 132 of the Constitution by the High Court related to the inter· pretation of article 224A of the Constitution. We have, however, per-mitted Mr. Sen under article 132(3) to raise the second contention also.

The contentions of Mr. Sen have been controverted by Mr. Setalvad on behalf of respondent No. 1 as well as by learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the Union of India and they have canvassed for the correctness of the view taken by the High Court.

Before examining the merits of the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant, it would be apposite to reproduce article 224A of the Constitution and section 80A of the Act :

"Article 224A. Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Chief Justice of High Court for any State may at any time. with the previous consent of the President, request any person who has held the office of Judge of that Court or of any other High Court to sit and act as Judge of the High Court for that

State, and every such person so requested shalt, while sc1 sitting and acting. be entitled to such allowances as the Prcsi dent may by order determine and have all the jurisdiction. powers and privileges of, but shall not otherwise he deemed to be, Judge of that High Court :

Provided that nothing in this article sha11 be CJeemod h. require any such person as aforesaid to sit a:~d act as Jud~..: of that High Court unless he consents so to do."

·"Section 80A. High Court to try election petitions. (]) The Court having jurisdiction to try an election petition ~ha1~ be the High Court.

(2) Such jurisdiction shall be exercised ordinarily hv single Judge o£ the High Court and the Chief Justice sh:~lt from time to time. assign one or more Judges for that purpose :

Provided that where the High Court consists only of one Judge, he shall try all election petitions presented to that Court.

(3) The High court in its discretion may, in the interests of justice or convenience, trv an election petition, wholly or partly, at place other than the place of seat of the High Court."

An election petition calling in question any election has under sec-tion 81 of the Act to be presented to the High Court. Sub-s~ction (1) of section 80A of the Act makes it clear that the Court which has juris-diction 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 Hi~h 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 Hi~l1 Court has to trv an election petition shalt be exercised ordinarily by sim~;le 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 sub· secti<>n (2) does not ·confer jurisdiction to try an election petition Such iurisdiction 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 iti the High Court shall be exercised. The sub-section thus relates to the procedure for the ex·· crcise of the jurisdiction and provides that the iurisdiction shall be e~-ercised ordinarily by ~ienle jud2e of the High Court who has been a~signed for the ourpose by the Chief Justice. Perusal. of sub-section (2) of section 80A makes it manifest that it is onlv judge of the · Hieh Court assigned for the purpose by the Chief Justice who can ex-ercise the iuri~niction whic'h i~ ve~tcd in the High Conrt to try an elec-tion oetition bv sub-section ( l) of that section. The provisions of ~ub-~ection (2) are mandatorv and person who is not judge of the High Court concerned and who has not been assigned for the purpose bv the Chief Justice cannot exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in the High Court by sub-section (l) of section 80A of the Act. The word "ordinarilv" does not indicate that the orovisions of sub·scc· tion (2) of section ROA are not mandatory and that rela~ation in com·

SUPREME COU~T REPORTS

pWmce with those provisions is permissible. The word "ordinarily"' only qualifies the number of .iudges who can exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in the High Court o try an election petition. The said word indicates that normally it would be single judge of the High Court who can exercise the jurisdiction which is vcstcd i11 the High Court, but in appropriate cases, such jurisdiction can also be exercised by two or more judges. •

It has not been disputed before us that the learned Chief Justice of the High Court has assigned Surajbhan J. for the purpose of the trial of the election petition filed by the appellant and some other peti-tions, but what has been contended by Mr. Sen is that Surajbhan J. is not judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Surajbhan J., it is urged, was requested by the Chief Justice ·to sit and act as judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court under article 224A of the Constitution and though Surajbl1an J. has consented so to do, he docs not tl1creby l~come ,a ind!!e of that Hi!!h romt. A:;; Suraibha•l J .. accordin~~ to Mr. Sen, lacks the requisite attribute of being judge of the High Court, he cannot exercise under sub-section (2) of section 80A of the Act the jurisdiction which is vested. by sub-section ( 1) of that section in the High Court. This contention, in our opinion, is devoid of force.Article 224A starts with the non-obstante clause and provid~.:s that notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter V of Part VI of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of High Court for any State may at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request any pcr-<:on who hils held thr office of judge of that Court or any other Hi)!h rourt to sit and act as jud~e of the High Court for that State. Tt is fu~thcr J1rovided that cvcrv such pcl'son so requested shall, whik so sitting and acting. be entitled to such allowances as the President mav bv order determine and have all the jurisdiction, powers and privilege~ of, but shall not otherwise, be deemed to be judge of that High Court. Accordin~ to the proviso to the article, no person would be r~quir~<l to sit and act as judge of the High Court unless he consents so to do. It is manifest from reading of article 224A that the request made by the Chief Justice to the person who has held the office of judge of that Court or anv other High Court is to sit and act as iudg.:: of the High Court for that State. The article further makes it clear that thr person while so sitting and acting shall have all tl1e jurisdiction, powers and privilege~ of judge of the High Court but shall not otherwise be deemed to be judge of that Court.

Analysing article 224A, it would follow that the request which is mwl~ by the Chief Justice of the High Court for any State under that article to person whohas held the office of High Court iudg.:! is to sit and act ao; .judg:c of the Higl1 COtirt f-or that State. Such request ha~ to he made by the Chi~f Justice after obtaining the previou'l consent of the President. The person requested while so sitting and actinjl shall have all the iurisdictiofl~ p"lwcrs anrl privileges of iudgc of the Hi!!h Court. Such person shall not otherwise he deemed to be judge of that Court. The words "while ~o sitting an~l acting" show that the . person requested not mcrrly has the jnrisdiction, powers and privileges .. of judge of the Hir.:h Court. he also sits and acts as judge (lf that

Court. Question thcu arises as to what is tit~ sigttiticancc {If the con· eluding words "but shall not otherwise be deemed to be judge of that Court". These words, in our opinion, indicate that in matters not relating to jurisdiction, powers and privileges the person so requested shall not be deemed to be judge of that Court. The dictionary mean· ing of the word "otherwise" i<> "in other ways'', "in either circumstan· ces", "in other respects". The word "otherwise" would, therefore, point to the conclusion that for the purpose of jurisdiction, powers· and privileges the person requested shall be judge of the concerned High Court and for purposes other than those of jurisdiction, powers and privileges, the person requested shall not be deemed to be judge of that Court. It would. for example, be not permissible to transfer him under article 222 of the Constitution. The use of the word "deemed" shows that the person who sits and acts as judge of the High Court under article 224A i~ fl judge of thr said Hieh Court but by legal fiction he is not to be considered to .be judge of the High Court for purposes other than those relating to jurisdiction, powers and privileges. The words "but shall not otherwise be deemed to be judge of that Hil!h Court", in our opinion, by necess;~rv implication emphasise ano hil!h-light the fact that for purposes of jurisdiction, powers and privileges the person requested under article 224A is judge of the High Court con~ cerned.

The words "while so sitting and acting" in article 224A do not contcmolatc that the person requested has the powers, privilei!CS and iurisdiction onlv when he sits in court during court hours. The effer.t of those words is that during the period for which person has been requested to sit and act as judge of the High .court, he has the iuris~ diction, powers and privileges of judge of that Court.

The lan~agc of artiCle 224A. but for· the difference in the mar· ginal 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 part of the Constitution as originally framed .. Tt wa~ thPll numbered as article 224. The lanquage of the article was identical but its marginal note at that time read as. "Attendance of Re· · tired :Judj!cs at Sittinsts of High Court". Article 224A was inserted by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act. 19(>2 and tlw marginal note or the article since then is "Anpointment of Retired Judges at Sitting<> of the High Court". Both articles 128 and 224A have bee, modelled on· section 8 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consoli-G dation) Act. 1925 which relates to the Supreme Court of Judicature iti En~~;land. Accordin~ to section 8 of the English Act. the Lord Chan-ceJior 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 Ap~al or ('f' :~ i11flo-p oF the Hil!h C011Tt to sit and ACt ~<; ~ ind~~~ of the ('nurt of App('al. and every such person so requested shan. while so sittii:tc and acting. have all the jurisdiction, · nowers and ptivi1cge<: of. but shall not otherWise be deemed to be. iudgc of the Court or Aopeal·: Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to. require anv .such person as aforesaid to sit and act as judge of the Co\lrt or Appeal unless he consents so to do. · ·

.; ~ : . .·

Mr. Sen has pointed to the difference in the language of articles 224 and 224A. It is urged that under article 224 person is appoint-ed by the President as an additional or acting judge of the High Court, while under article 224A the person requested by the Chie[ Justice is only to sit and act as judge of the High Court. In our opinion, the difference in the language of the two articles would not detract from the conclusion that person requested under article 224A sits and act~ n as judge of the High Court for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction, powers and privileges. Article 224 and 224A deal with different mat-ters. If the language of article 224A warrants the conclusion that in the matter of jurisdiction, powers and privileges, the person requested is judge of the High Court, the said conclusion cannot be affected by the fact that in another article dealing with different matter the language employed is not identical but has been couched in different words.

According to article 216 of the Constitution, every High Court shall consist of Chief Justice and such other judges as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint. It is not neces-sary for the purpose of the present case to decide whether person requested under article 224A falls within the category of "such other judges as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint" under article 216 because the provisions of article 224A have an overriding effect. This is made clear by the non-obstante clause at the beginning of article 224A. The effect of that clause is that notwithstanding the other provisions of Chapter V and Part VI of the Constitution, the person requested under article 224A would sit and act as judge of the High Court and would ha11c the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of judge of that Court.

Apart from th(! ahove, we find that if the come:;tion advanced on behalf of the appellam were to be accepted. it wouid render article 224A to be dead Jetter because the jurisdiction of the High Court can under the Letters Patent of the various High Courts as well as the o;her enactments which have been made in this connection can be exercised only through judge of that High Court. If person ap-pointed under article 224A cannot be considered to be judge of the High Court for the purpose of jurisdiction. p:)wers and privileges, the question of appointing such person would never arise. No one can obviously be asked to sit and act as judge of the Hig!1 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 dead letter. Any construction of articl~ 224A which would have the effect of rendering that article to be ineffective and purposeless must, in our opinion. he rejected. As observed on page 36 of Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edition, construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of statute will normally be rejected.

We are, therefore, of the view that person requested to sit and act as jud~e of the Hi!Zh Court under article 224A i~ ;J .iuckc or that Court for the purpose of sub-section (2) of section 80A of the Act.

We may now deal with the second contention advanced on: behalf of the appeJant that after the election petition filed by him had been entrustea to Vyas J., the same could·not be allocated to Surajbhan J. In this context we find that after Vyas J. had been directed by the Chief Justice to sit on the Gwalior Bench of the High Court, Vyas J. himself made request in letter dated August 5, 1973 to the Chief Justice that the election petition filed by the appellant should be heard by some-one at Indore. It was further mentioned by Vyas J. that this would avoid his visits to Indore and would be in .the interest of the e.arly disposal of the 'petition. The Chief Justice acceded to this request of Vyas J. and entrusted the election petition filed by the appellant to Surajbhan J. There was; in· our-opinion, no legal infirmity in the order made by the Chief Justice in this respect. There is nothing in the language of section 80A of the Act which stood in. the way of the. learned Chief Justice relieving Vyas J. at his request from the task of trying the election petition which had been earlier entrusted to him. We have also not been referred to any other provision which prevented . the Chief Justice from making the impugned order dated August 20, 1973. The case of Zikar v. The State(l), to which reference has been. made on behalf of the appellant, can hardly be of any heJp to him. What was laid down in that case was that the Chief Justice of High Court has no power to withdraw and transfer case of which division Bench is properly seized to another Bench without the concurrence of the former. There is nothing in that case to indicate that Chief Justice is powerless to withdraw case from judge of the High Court even though request for that purpose is made by that judge.The two legal contentions which have been advanced on behalf of the appellant in our opinion, are not well founded, and we have no hesitation to repel them. All the same, looking to the special facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that it is fit and proper and in the interest of justice that the election petition filed by the appellant be tried by another learned judge of the High Court who may be assigned for the purpose by the Chief Justice of that Court.. It seems indeed desirab!c that election petitions should ordinarily, ifl possible, be entrusted for 1rial to permanent judge of the High Court) even though we find that additional or acting judge~ or tl10sc requested! under article 224A of the Constitution to sit and act as judges of the High Court, if assigned for the purpose by the Chief Justice; are legally competent to hear those matters. We, · therefore, set aside the order daied August 10, 1973 . . The election petition filed by the appel-lant shall now be heard by permanent judge who may be assigned for the purpose by the learned Chief Justice; The case may, therefore, be placed before the learned Chief Justice for necessary orders: The appeal is accepted accordingly. The parties in the circumstances shaH bear their own costs of this Court and in the High Court.

Appeal allowed~

(I) I. L. R. 1951 Nag. 251, 2-L522Sup.Cli74