PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and R.K.Choudhary JJ.
Kapildeo Singh
Versus
Suraj Narayan Singh
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 603 of 1957 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 02, 1958
ELECTION PETITION - Timeliness - Amendment - Necessary Parties - Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Secs. 80, 81(1), 82(b), 90(1), 90(3), 100(1), 101 - General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), Sec. 10.
Fact of the Case:
An election petition was filed beyond the prescribed time limit, but the petitioner argued that the office of the Election Commission had made arrangements to receive election petitions on that day as a special case. The petitioner also argued that the Election Tribunal erred in allowing an amendment to the election petition that withdrew allegations of corrupt practices against two candidates who had withdrawn their candidatures.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the election petition was filed within time, as the office of the Election Commission was closed on the last day for filing but had made arrangements to receive election petitions on that day as a special case. The court also held that the Election Tribunal erred in allowing the amendment to the election petition, as the Representation of the People Act is a self-contained code governing the trial of election petitions and does not allow for the withdrawal of a part of a claim once an election petition has been presented.
Issues: 1. Whether the election petition was filed within time. 2. Whether the Election Tribunal erred in allowing the amendment to the election petition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies to election petitions and allows for the filing of an election petition on the next day after a closed holiday. 2. The Representation of the People Act is a self-contained code governing the trial of election petitions and does not allow for the withdrawal of a part of a claim once an election petition has been presented.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application challenging the Election Tribunal's order, with costs.
R.K.Choudhary, J.
1. The short facts leading to the presentation of this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as under:
2. In the last General Election the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 and two other persons, namely, Sri Rameshwar, Yadav and Sri Sukar Yadav, were declared as duly nominated candidates for the election from the Barahiya single member Constituency No. 145 of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. Subsequently, on the 4th of February, 1957, the last date fixed by the Election Commission for withdrawal of the candidature, the aforesaid Sri Rameshwar Yadav and Sri Sukar Yadav withdrew their candidature for the Assembly seat of the aforesaid Constituency, and the withdrawal was duly accepted by the Returning Officer. The result of the election was announced on the 18th of March, 1957, and the petitioner Sri Kapildeo Singh was declared to have been duly elected. Respondents 2 and 3, who also had contested for the aforesaid seat, were thus defeated. On the 3rd of May, 1957, respondent No. 1 an elector in the aforesaid Constituency, presented an election petition before the Secretary, Election Commission, India, calling in question the election of the petitioner or the said Constituency.
In that election petition, apart from other allegations, certain allegations of corrupt practices committed by the aforesaid Sri Rameshwar Yadav and Sri Sukar Yadav were made, but those two persons were not made parties in the election petition. The election petition was received by Sri J.N. Lal, District Judge of Monghyr, who had been appointed the member of the Tribunal to hear the same. The petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and filed his written statement denying all the allegations made in the petition and asserted that the petition was time-barred and bad for non-joinder of the aforesaid persons who had withdrawn their candidature.
H was contended on behalf of the petitioner that on the above two grounds the election petition should be dismissed in limine. Later on, respondent No. 1 filed an amendment petition to the effect that paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 26 of the election petition, which contained allegations about corrupt practices by the above two persons, be deleted and their names also be deleted wherever they occur in the election petition. The above amendment was allowed by the Election Tribunal, who, after hearing the parties on the above two preliminary objections, over-ruled the same and held that the election petition could not be dismissed in limine as contended by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present application in this Court for issue of an appropriate writ quashing the above order of the Tribunal.
3. The first point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the election petition was filed beyond the time prescribed by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act and, therefore, it was barred by time. Section 80 of the Act states that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part (Part VI).
Section 81 (1) lays down that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Sub-section (1) of Sec.100 and Sec.101 to the Election Commission 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 the dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates.
According to the above provisions the election petition should have been filed within forty-five days from the 18th of January, 1957, the date of election of the petitioner. It is admitted by the parties in this case that on computation of the above period of forty-five days, the 2nd of May, 1957, was the last date for the filing of the election petition. That d
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.