Judgment

KULDIP SINGH, J.

(1) THE question for our consideration in this appeal is whether an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) filed on the reopening of the High court after vacations, the period of forty-five days under Section 81 of the Act having run out during the vacations, was liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Act.

(2) THE elections to the A. P. Legislative Assembly were held on 22/11/1989. The appellant contested the assembly seat from Avinagoda constituency. He was declared elected on November 26, 1989. An election petition calling in question the appellants election could be presented to the A. P. High court within 45 days from the date of declaration of the election-result of the appellant. It is not disputed that the said period of forty-five days expired on 10/01/1990. The election petition, challenging the election of the appellant was, however, filed in the High court by the respondents on 15/01/1990.

(3) THE High court of A. P. remained closed for Sankranthi vacation from Tuesday, January 2nd to Friday, 12/01/1990 (both days inclusive). January 13 and 14, 1990 were holidays being second Saturday and Sunday. It was under these circumstances that the election petition was filed on the reopening of the High court on 15/01/1990.

(4) THE appellant (returned candidate), filed an application before the High court praying that the election petition be dismissed, inter alia, on the ground of limitation. It was contended that the Act being a complete code for the determination of election disputes, its provisions have to be strictly complied with and the election petition filed beyond the period of forty-five days, was liable to be dismissed under Section 86 read with Section 81 of the Act. It was also contended that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable, the Registry of the High court was open during the Sankranthi vacation, two Assistant Registrars were on vacation duty, urgent applications were being disposed of by the vacation Judges and 25 election petitions were in fact filed during the said vacations. The High court rejected the contentions of the appellant and dismissed the application. The High court came to the conclusion that the notification regarding Sankranthi vacation did not make any distinction between the court and the Registry of the High court. It explicitly stated that the High court would remain closed from 2/01/1990 to Janu 12/01/1990. Relying upon Section 10 of the General Clauses Act the High court found that the filing of the election petition on the reopening day of the High court on 15/01/1990 was within limitation. This appeal via special leave petition is against the judgment of the High court.

(5) THIS court in Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra and Hari Shanker Tripathi v. Shiv Harsh has held that S. 4 and 5 of the Limitation Act have no application to the election petitions under the Act. It was further held, following H.H. Raja Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail Singh that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act would in terms be applicable to the election petitions under the Act. Section 10 (relevant part) is as under:

"10. (1 Where, by any central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the court or office is open:

PROVIDED that nothing in that section shall apply to any act or proceeding to which the Indian Limitation Act, 1877, applies."

(6) THE learned counsel for the parties have not disputed the legal position that S. 4 and 5 of the Limitation Act have no appl