As per case facts, the appellant contested a legislative assembly election and was declared elected. The contesting respondent filed an Election Petition challenging the appellant's election, which was presented before ... the Stamp Reporter-cum-Oath Commissioner of the High Court. The appellant raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Election Petition should have been presented either before the Designated Election Judge or the Chief Justice of the High Court, and that presentation to the Stamp Reporter was invalid under Section 81 of the Act, rendering the petition liable for dismissal without trial. The Designated Election Judge overruled this objection, relying on Chapter VIIIA of the High Court Rules. The question arose whether the High Court is competent to frame rules for receiving election petitions under Section 81 of the RPA, and if not, whether a petition can be presented in the absence of specific provisions, or if it must be presented only to the High Court (Chief Justice and other judges). Finally, the Supreme Court held that presentation of an election petition to the Stamp Reporter of the High Court is valid. The Court emphasized that the High Court, as a constitutional court with plenary jurisdiction, has the power to frame rules and authorize its administrative staff to perform ministerial functions like receiving petitions. This is considered an incidental and necessary function for the effective discharge of judicial functions, and such authorization does not constitute delegation of judicial powers. The Court affirmed that such a practice, if not inherently objectionable, should prevail to prevent injustice, and dismissed the appeals.