IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (KALABURAGI BENCH)
C.M. POONACHA, J.
Sri. Mujahid Rauf Mazhari - Petitioner
Versus
The Election Commission Karnataka State Bengaluru and Ors. - Respondents
Election Petition No. 200008 of 2023
Decided on : 14-02-2024
Representation of People Act, 1951 - Sections 81(1) and 86(1) - Election petition - Petition challenging election of respondent filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation - Supreme Court precedent establishes that election petitions must be filed within 45 days and are governed by the Act as a complete code - Delay in filing cannot be condoned under the Limitation Act. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to declare the election of respondent No.4 as null and void due to non-disclosure of assets, filed 47 days post-election declaration.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the election petition was barred by time and dismissed the application for condoning delay.
Issues: The main issue was whether the election petition was maintainable given the delay in filing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the Representation of People Act provides a strict timeline for filing election petitions, which cannot be extended by the Limitation Act.
Result: Election petition dismissed.
ORDER :
C.M. Poonacha, J. - The present petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:
ii) Issue any other order or any other relief for which the petitioner is found entitled to be awarded in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The declaration that the fourth respondent was elected from the Kalaburagi North Constituency i.e., Constituency No.45 to the Legislative Assembly of Karnataka was issued vide notification by the Election Commission of India which was published in the gazette on 14.5.2023. The present petition is filed on 30.6.2023 i.e., after a lapse of 47 days from the declaration of result.
3. The registry is raised an objection that there is a delay in filing the present petition.
4. The petitioner has filed IA.No.1/2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 3 days.
5. Section 81(1) and Section 86(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 states as follows:
(1) An election petition calling 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 election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates."
86. Trial of election petitions.-
(1) The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 81 or section 82 or section 117.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal (1999) 8 SCC 532 considering as to whether an election petition is maintainable having been filed beyond the period of limitation has held as follows:
7. Having regard to the clear enunciation of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshdeep Arora the question of considering IA.No.1/2023 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the present election petition does not arise.
8. In view of the aforementioned, IA.No.1/2023 is dismissed. Consequently, the election petition stands dismissed as being barred by time.
Election petitions must be filed within 45 days as per the Representation of People Act, and delays cannot be condoned under the Limitation Act.
Election petitions must be filed within the prescribed period, and delays cannot be condoned as per the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Timeliness is crucial in election petitions; even minimal delay is not condonable, leading to automatic dismissal under the Representation of People Act, 1951.
The election petition was dismissed for being filed beyond the 45-day limit set by the Representation of People Act, 1951, with no provision for condonation of delay.
The Representation of People Act, 1951 mandates strict adherence to the limitation period for filing election petitions, and non-compliance results in dismissal without consideration of merits.
The limitation period for election petitions under the Representation of the People Act is strict and cannot be extended, and claims of fraud must be substantiated with evidence.
The court established that the filing of an election petition must be strictly interpreted in accordance with the statutory time limits, and procedural delays in registration do not invalidate a time....
Election petitions must comply with mandatory provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including timely filing and joining necessary parties, or they will be dismissed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.