PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 577
Dr. Ambedkar: Suppose there are two Benches. Whichever Bench is there, the Registrar of the High Court puts the case before the Bench and the Bench hears it. One may go to one and another to the other.
Pandit Munishwar Datt Upadhyay: One may pass one order and another may pass another order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: How can that be ?
- Shri Raj Bahadur (Rajasthan) : That word ‘unvoidably’ is very important. In my humble opinion, the amendment that has been moved by Mr. Kapoor is not worthy of acceptance, in so far as it is specifically provided that no assistant Returning Officer shall, subject to the control of the Returning Officer, be competent to perform all or any of the functions. The Returning Officer has got to supervise and control in the discharge of that function. He can nominate one of his Assistants to perform a particular job. It is perfectly within his competence as a Returning Officer and in the exercise of his control to select one out of so many of his assistants to do a particular job. Where there is a difficulty, he can appoint one of them.
Shri P. Basi Reddi: How could he authorise ? Suppose by accident he is prevented on the way, what will happen ?
Dr. Ambedkar : I am afraid that a large number of bogeys are being raised in order to press a point to which some people seem to be quite attached. The position is this and I think lawyer Members would understand what I am saying.
Shri Sidhva: Quite the contrary.
Dr. Ambedkar: We know in law the distinction between what is called ‘court’ and what is called persona designata. In certain cases although a person may be a member of the court or forming a court for certain other purposes, he is specifically designated, so that he himself must perform the functions and he is not a ‘court’. The same principle
*P. D., Vol. 12, Part II, 15th May 1951, pp. 8780-83.