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.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I. Kalita, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears on call for the opposite party.

Parties to this application:

2. The applicant herein, namely, Karim Uddin Borbhuiya, is the returned candidate, whose election has been challenged by the opposite party herein, namely, Anamul Haque.

3. Hence, for the sake of convenience, in this order, the term “petitioner” will denote the “election petitioner” and the word “respondent” will denote the returned candidate. In the connected election petition, there is only one respondent.

Prayer in this interlocutory application:

4. The respondent, by filing this interlocutory application, has prayed for rejection of the election petition under the provision of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for brevity) read with section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RP Act, 1951’ for brevity).

5. In this interlocutory application, the respondent has contended that in the connected election petition, the petitioner has prayed (A) for declaration that the election of the respondent from 10 Sonai LAC is void, and (B) for any other orders as may be deemed fit and proper under sections 98, 99, 100 and 101 of the RP Act, 1951.

Contention on behalf of the respondent:

6. The learned senior counsel for the respondent has submitted that although the respondent has urged, inter alia, four major points for questioning the maintainability of the connection election petition. However, at this stage he is pressing this application on the following two points:

(a) The connected election petition is barred by limitation.

(b) The election petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

7. In connection with the issue of limitation, it has been submitted that the election results was declared on 02.05.2021 and therefore, 45 days time within which election petition ought to have been filed by the petitioner had expired on 16.06.2021. It was further submitted that the petitioner was impleaded as respondent no. 7 in Election Petition No. 1/2021, filed by one Aminul Haque Laskar. In the said proceeding, the right of the petitioner to file his written statement was closed by this Court by an order dated 24.08.2021. Thereafter, on 31.08.2021, the petitioner had filed the connected election petition, which was registered as Election Petition No. 5/2021. It has been submitted that to explain the delay, although the petitioner is taking the help of order dated 10.01.2022, passed by the Supreme Court of India in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, (2022) 3 SCC 117.

8. It was submitted that the said order was never intended to have the effect of extending the period of limitation prescribed by section 81(1) of the RP Act, 1951. It was submitted that by the said order, the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 would stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

9. In connection with the second point, the learned senior counsel for the respondent has submitted that in prayer (A) of the election petition, the petitioner has prayed for declaring the election of the respondent to be voi