Bombay High Court
Ashok Shankarrao Chavan
Versus
Anil Trayambakrao Patil
Decided On:

Headnote:REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951

       Section 81 (1)-Limitation Act (Act XXXVI of 1963) - Sections 4, 5, 29 (2)-General Clauses Act (Act X of 1897)-Section 10 - Notification by Bombay High Court for regarding working hours in vocations-Election petition filed after 45 days-Accepted by Additional Registrar of Aurangabad Bench-Effect of closure of High Court in summer-No effect-Petition time barred.

       What is to be borne in mind is that the rules of Kerala High Court appear to be that summer vacation should be treated as closed holidays. In other words this case is taken to Hari Shankar Tripathi v. Shiv Harsh, (1976) 1 SCC 897. As summer vacation has been treated as closed holidays, period is natural extended as the Judge nominated by the Chief Justice did not work in the vacation. In our State in summer vacation the Courts are not closed hut in view of the above two Notifications only the judicial work is closed and for some purpose always the Vacation Judges are appointed. As pointed out above, the additional Registrar is empowered to accept Election Petition.

       For Citation : (1987) 90 Bom LR 39 at p. 43 : (1988) 90 Bom LR 39 : (1988) 21 Reports 429