Important Point:
There is no common law of elections. The proceedings calling in question the validity of an election are purely statutory proceedings. An election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity, but is purely a statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and that the Court possesses no common law power. It is trite proposition that in such proceedings statutory requirements must strictly be established. It is also well settled that the success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. The present writ petition calls in question the Order dated 22.06.2016 passed by 6th Additional District Judge, District Bhavnagar, below Exh.6 in Election Application No. 2 of 2015 whereby the application for condonation of delay of 13 days caused in preferring the election petition challenging the validity of election held in the year 2015 of Palitana Municipality came to be rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case culled out from the record which led to the filing of the present petition are that in the year 2015 the election of Palitana Municipality was held under the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (the Municipalities Act for short) and the results thereof were declared on 02.12.2015. The petitioners questioned the election of the private respondents herein for Ward No. 3 of Palitana Municipality by filing an election petition (application) on 03.12.2015.

3. According to the provisions of Section 14 of the Municipalities Act, the validity of any election can be brought in question by any person qualified to vote at the election at any time within fifteen days after the date of the declaration of the result of the election before the District Court. It is the case of the petitioners that since there was delay of 13 days in filing the election petition, an application for condonation of delay along with the election petition was filed, inter-alia, stating the grounds and reasons thereof. By the impugned order, as stated herein above, the District Judge refused to condone the delay and did not entertain the election petition of the petitioners mainly on the ground that there is no provision in the Municipalities Act for waving the delay in filing the election petition.

4. Learned advocate Mr. V.G. Popat for the petitioners placing reliance on Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Limitation Act for short) has submitted that the same will apply to the Municipalities Act. He has submitted that the power to condone the delay emanates from Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 as there is no express exclusion of the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 under Section 14 of the Municipalities Act. Thus, it is urged on behalf of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the delay can be condoned under the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

5. Per contra, Ms. Roopal Patel learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Election Authorities submits that the Order dated 22.06.2016 passed by 6th Additional District Judge, District Bhavnagar, below Exh.6 is judicious and does not call for any interference. She has contended that according to Section 14 of the Municipalities Act, a Judge not below the grade of Assistant Judge is appointed by the State government for holding an inquiry as contemplated therein, if any validity of the election is called in question. She has urged that the Judge exercising the power under Section 14 of the Municipalities Act cannot be strictly termed as Court as envisaged under the Limitation Act, and the nature of proceedings before him cannot be termed as civil proceedings. She has stated that the present Act is a complete code in itself, hence the provisions of Limitation Act will not apply. In this connection, reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hukamdev Narayan Yadav vs. Lalit Narayan Mishra, (1974) 2 SCC 133. She has specifically submitted that there is no provision in the Municipality Act, which confers the power of condoning the delay in filing an application or election petition. As the Municipalities Act itself contemplates a period of 15 days, any petition or application filed subsequently cannot be entertained as a necessary corollary. In this regard reference is made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Shri Somabhai K. Acharadas Patel vs. Patel Becharbhai Shambhubhai and Others, 1982 GLH 227. She has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 71 of the Gujarat Munic