Back
2000(7) Supreme 85
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., R.C. Lahoti & K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.
Tarun Prasad Chatterjee -Appellant
versus
Dinanath Sharma -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2937 of 2000
Decided on 10-10-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate, Prakash Shrivastava and Dilip Tandon, Advocates.
For the Respondents : B.S. Banthia, Advocate.
The provisions contained in General Clauses Act, 1897 are applicable in computing the period of limitation for filing election petition under the R.P. Act, 1951. There is nothing in Section 81(1) to indicate that the provisions contained in the General Clauses Act have no application. Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 gives statutory recognition to the well-established principle applicable to the construction of statutes that ordinarily in computing the period of time prescribed, the rule observed is to exclude the first and include the last day. The principle is that when a period is delimited by statute or rule, which has both a beginning and an end and the word "from" is used indicating the beginning, the opening day is to be excluded and if the last day is to be excluded the word "to" is to be used. In order to exclude the first day of the period, the crucial thing to be noted is whether the period of limitation is delimited by a series of days or by any fixed period. This is intended to obviate the difficulties or inconvenience that may be caused to some parties. For instance, if a policy of insurance has to be good for one day from the 1st January, it might be valid only for a few hours after its execution and the party or the beneficiary in the insurance policy would not get reasonable time to lay claim, unless the 1st January is excluded from the period of computation. (Paras 6, 10 and 12)
It was argued that the language used in Section 81(1) that "within forty-five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate" expresses a different intention and Section 9 of the General Clauses Act has no application. We do not find any force in this contention. In order to apply Section 9, the first condition to be fulfilled is whether a prescribed period is fixed "from" a particular point. When the period is marked by terminus a quo and terminus ad quem, the canon of interpretation envisaged and Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 require to exclude the first day. The words "from" and "within" used in Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 do not express any contrary intention. It was also contended that the filing of the application on the date of election of the returned candidate cannot be considered as a valid presentation of petition as envisaged in the section. We do not think that any such interpretation is possible by a conjoint reading of Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 and Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The first day for the period of limitation is required to be excluded for the convenience of the parties and if the declaration of the result is delayed or is done late in the night, the candidate or elector would hardly get any time for presentation of the election petition. Law comes to the rescue of such parties to give full forty-five days period for filing the election petition. Nevertheless, any petition presented on the date of election of the returned candidate would be certainly within the period of limitation as it is a presentation on the date of election of the returned candidate. (Paras 13 and 14)
In the instant case, the date of election of the returned candidate being 25.11.1998, the election petition filed on 12.1.1999 on exclusion of the first day from computing the period of limitation (Para 15)
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan, J.-The short question involved in the present appeal is whether in computing the period for limitation as provided in Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter mentioned as "R.P. Act, 1951"), the date of election of the returned candidate should be excluded or not.
2. The appellant and the respondent herein contested the election of the Legislative Assembly held on 25.11.1998 from 127, Raipur Gramin Assembly Constituency of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant was declared elected on 28.11.1998. The respondent filed an Election Petition under Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 challenging the election of the appellant. That Petition was filed on 12.1.1999. The appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. read with Section 81 of the R.P. Act 1951, praying that the Election Petition was liable to be dismissed at the threshold as not maintainable as the same had not been filed within 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate. The respondent contented that in view of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Election Petition was filed in time. The plea of the respondent- Election Petitioner was accepted by the learned Single Judge and that decision is assailed before us.
3. We heard both Mr. P.P. Rao, the learned senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr. B.S. Banthia, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent. The contention of the appellant s Counsel is that in view of the specific language used in Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act 1951, Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 has no application and it was argued that the mandate of Section 81 of the R.P. Act provides that the Election Petition should be filed within 45 days of the date of election and not a single day beyond that, whereas the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is applicable and the date of election of the returned candidate is to be excluded in view of the application of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, the relevant provisions of the R.P. Act, 1951 and General Clauses Act, 1897 are to be looked into Section 81 of the R.P. Act, 1951 reads as follows :
81. Presentation of petitions. -(1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one ofmore 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 candidates at the election and dates of their election are different, that later of those two dates.
Explanation.-In this sub-section, "elector" means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not.
(4) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.
(Emphasis added)
5. The "date of election" of the returned candidate has been defined under Section 67(A) of the R.P. Act, 1951, which is as under :
"Date of election of candidate.-For the purposes of this Act, the date on which a candidate is declared by the returning officer under the provisions of Section 53, or Section 66, to be elected to a House of Parliament or of the Legislature of the State shall be the date of election of that candidate."
Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 reads as follows :
9. Commencement and termination of time.-(1) in any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word "from" , and, for the purpose of including the last in a
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
