Back
1999(7) Supreme 487
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., S. Rajendra Babu & R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
Lachhman Das Arora -Appellant
versus
Ganeshi Lal & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8343 of 1997
Decided on 1-9-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : M.P. Jah, Ram Ekbal Roy, Anil Kumar Chopra, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Adarsh Kumar Goel, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Sheela Goel, S.S. Shamshery, Advocates.
Held : The Representation of People Act is a special code providing a period of limitation for filing of an election petition. No period for filing of an election petition is prescribed under the Indian Limitation Act. The Act insofar as it relates to presentation and trial of election disputes is a complete code and a special law. The scheme of the special law shows that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Indian Limitation Act do not apply. If an election petition is not filed within the prescribed period of forty-five days, Section 86(1) of the Act, which provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117, is straightaway attracted. (Para 6)
The proviso to Section 10 of the General Clauses Act makes the provisions of Section 10 inapplicable to cases where the Indian Limitation Act applies and since Indian Limitation Act does not apply to election petitions filed under the Act. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act in term would apply to the filing of election petitions also. According to Section 10 an act should be considered to have been done within the prescribed period, if it is done on the next day on which the Court or office is open. The applicability of Section 10 would, however, depend upon the facts of each case and the manner in which the High Court transacts its business during the period of vacations. (Para 7)
The summer vacation notification issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court unambiguously provides that during the summer vacations i.e. period between June 1 to June 30, 1996 (both days inclusive) while the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh would remain closed for civil business, it would be open for ‘hearing of election petitions or any other matter arising out of the Representation of the People Act’. The learned Election Judge of the High Court was, under the circumstances, justified in holding that benefit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act was not available to the election petitioner to save the period of limitation as undisputedly the election petition had been filed, on reopening day of the High Court after summer vacations, but after the expiry of the period of forty-five days prescribed under Section 81(1) of the Act, which period had expired during the period of summer vacations. In view of the clear language of the notification, there was no impediment in the way of the appellant to present the election petition during the summer vacations. Since, it is a common ground that the election petition in the instant case had been filed one week after the expiry of the period of forty five days, it was clearly barred by time. The High Court was, under the circumstances, fully justified in dismissing the election petition on that ground. (Paras 9 & 10)
There is no quarrel with the proposition that it is the duty of the Courts to maintain the purity of election process but at the same time there is no gainsaying that the law of limitation may harshly effect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its vigour when the statute so prescribes. The Courts cannot extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds more particularly in the matter of filing of election petitions under the Act. (Para 10)
Judgment
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI.-The appellant herein is aggrieved by the dismissal of his Election Petition by the learned Election Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana on the preliminary issue of limitation without trial.
2. The first respondent was declared elected to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from Sirsa Assembly Constituency on 10.5.1996. The appellant, defeated candidate, called in question his election on various grounds by presenting an election petition on 1.7.1996 at 3.00 P.M. in the Registry of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The election petition was resisted and a preliminary objection was raised by respondent No. 1 to the effect that the election petition had not been filed within the period of 45 days as prescribed by Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter “the Act”) and was as such liable to be dismissed. The learned Election Judge on the basis of the preliminary objection, raised the following issue :-
“Whether the election petition has been filed within the period of limitation?”
Vide judgment dated 16th July, 1997, the issue was decided against the election petitioner and consequently the election petition was dismissed. In holding that the petition had been filed beyond the period of limitation of 45 days, the learned Election Judge relied upon a Notification issued by the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 27.11.1995, by which calendar of summer vacations for the year commencing 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1996 had been settled by the High Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, in challenging the impugned judgment of the High Court, submitted that since the High Court was closed for summer vacations between June 1 and June 30, 1996 (both days inclusive) the election petition presented in the Registry on the reopening day of the High Court, on July 1, 1996, was within the period of limitation. Reliance in this behalf was placed on Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and upon the judgments of this Court in Hari Shanker Tripathi v. Shiv Harsh & Ors.1 and Simhadri Satya Narayana Rao v. M. Budda Prasad & Ors.2, to urge that where the High Court is closed on account of vacations, presentation of an election petition on the next day following the vacations, would render the election petition to have been filed during the prescribed period, if that period fell during the vacations.
4. On behalf of the returned candidate, on the other hand, it was asserted that since the Notification dated 27.11.1995 issued by the High Court itself provided that though the High Court was to remain closed for civil business during the summer vacations, it was to remain open for the purpose of hearing an election petition, therefore Section 10 of the General Clauses Act was not attracted. Reliance in support of the submission was placed on the judgment of this Court in Satbir v. Smt. Parsanni Devi & Ors.3, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court had considered a Notification issued by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 20th November, 1981, in almost identical terms and held that since for the purpose of hearing of election petitions and filing of other matters under the Representation of the People Act, the Notification had provided an exception, benefit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act was not available to an election petitioner to file the election petition on the next day following the summer vacations.
5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at the bar.
Section 81(1) of the Act deals with the presentation of election petitions and provides:
“81. Presentation of petitions.-(1) An election called in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
