IMPORTANT POINT
The speech of appellant, a Hindu, on 11-2-90 in Hindu Temple during a Hindu religious festival Akhand Harinam Saptah to the Hindu devotes for protection of Hindutva is clearly an appeal to the voters on the ground of his religion which amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

JUDGMENT

J.S. Verma, J.-This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short "the Act") against the judgment dated 23.4.1991 passed by H. Suresh, J. of the Bombay High Court in Election Petition No. 14 of 1990, is by the returned candidate whose election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from 48, Nehru Nagar Constituency, held on 27.2.1990 has been declared to be void on the ground under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act on the ground that he, his Election Agent and workers have committed corrupt practice as defined under Section 123(3) and Section 123(3A) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 .

2. Elections to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly were announced on 18.1.1990. The nomination papers were filed by the appellant for election from 48, Nehru Nagar Constituency on 31.1.1990. His nomination was accepted on 8.2.1990. The election was held on 27.2.1990 and the result was declared on 1.3.1990. The appellant was candidate of the Shiv Sena and he was declared duly elected since he had got the maximum number of votes. The election petition was filed on 16.4.1990 by respondent Smt. Saroj Sandesh Naik (Bhosale). There was some defect in the verification of the election petition and, therefore, on 19.4.1990 the defect in verification was permitted to be cured and a fresh affidavit in support thereof was taken by the Court. The appellant took out chamber summons to dismiss the election petition under Section 86 of the Act for non-compliance of Secion 81 of the Act which was dismissed on 17.11.1990. After conclusion of the trial, the impugned judgment was delivered on 23.4.1991 setting aside the appellant s election. Hence this appeal.

3. The grounds taken for opposing the election petition before the High Court, have been reiterated in this appeal. In substance, these grounds are as under:-

(1) There is non-compliance of sub-section (1) of Section 81 inasmuch as the election petition presented on 16.4.1990 was time barred. There is also non-compliance of sub-section (3) of Section 81 inasmuch as copies of the photographs annexed to the election petition were illegible and, therefore, the copy of the election petition served on the appellant was not a true copy of the election petition. On these grounds, dismissal of the election petition under Section 86 was claimed for non-compliance of Section 81 of the Act.

(2) The contents of the election petition are not in accordance with Section 83 of the Act inasmuch as it does not contain the material facts and full particulars of the corrupt practices alleged therein. For this reason, no triable issue arises in respect of the corrupt practices alleged under sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Act. It was urged that the election petition is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C.

(3) Even on facts, no corrupt practice is proved.

Re: Ground No. (1)

3. We shall first deal with the contention relating to the liability of the election petition for dismissal under Section 86 of the Act for non-compliance of sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 81 of the Act.

4. Non- compliance of sub-section (1) is alleged on the ground that the last date of expiry of the period of 45 days from the date of election which is the limitation prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 81 of the Act was 14.4.1990, but the election petition was in fact presented on 16.4.1990. Admittedly 14th and 15th April, 1990 were holidays on which days the High Court and its office were closed. The question, therefore, is: Whether Section 10 of the General Clauses Act is applicable ? If it applies, presentation of the election petition on 16.4.1990, the day on which the Court and its office reopened after the holidays, would be presentation within the prescribed period of limitation, but not otherwise. We have considered this question at lenght in the connected Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil & Anr.1, and held the