SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Pat) 437

NAVIN SINHA
Shambhu Lal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


Judgment

Navin Sinha, J.

1. Heard the Counsels for the parties.

2. This writ application raises a very short controversy for determination.

3. Will the limitation period of 30 days provided under Rule 106 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules 2006 (hereinafter called the Election Rules) for institution of an election petition from the date of declaration of the result, be absolute or will it be amenable to condonation under the Limitation Act by excluding the time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the documents assailed. In paramateria is Section 81 of the Representation of Peoples Act (hereinafter referred to as the R.P. Act) providing a limitation period of 45 days.

4. The results of the election of the Zila Parishad were declared on 12.6.2006. The petitioner applied for certified copy on 29.6.2006. The copy was prepared on 20.7.2006 and delivered to him on the same day. The election petition before the Civil Court was then filed on 31.7.2006.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the document had to be excluded. If that be done the election petition was in time. He relied upon - , Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top