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

2025 Supreme(Gau) 660

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Shakti Rani Das Daughter Of Dhananjay Das - Appellant 
Versus 
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondents 
WP(C) 6506 of 2022
Decided on : 20-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR. S K DAS, MR D BARMAN,MR R KARIM
For the Respondent: GA, ASSAM, MS. M BARMAN, MR. B BURAGOHAIN, MR. P BORAH, MS. M BARMAN, MR. R DUBEY

The provisions of the Limitation Act, particularly Section 5, are not applicable to election petitions under the Assam Municipal Act, as it is a self-contained code governing its own limitations.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Assam Municipal Act, 1956 - Section 16 - Election petition - Application for condonation of delay dismissed by District Judge on grounds of limitation - Court held that Section 5 of Limitation Act not applicable to election petitions under Assam Municipal Act, as it is a special law with its own provisions for limitation. (Paras 9, 39)

(B) Election Law - Condonation of Delay - The court emphasized that the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to condone delays in election petitions filed under special laws, reaffirming the principle that special laws prevail over general laws. (Paras 36, 39)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the election for ward commissioner but was unsuccessful. She filed an election petition after a delay, seeking condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was dismissed by the District Judge.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the dismissal, stating that the Assam Municipal Act's provisions for election petitions do not allow for the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Issues: The main issue was whether an application for condonation of delay beyond twenty-one days is maintainable under the Assam Municipal Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the Assam Municipal Act is a self-contained code, and the provisions of the Limitation Act, particularly Section 5, are not applicable to election petitions under this Act.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred inter-alia to assail an Order dated 23.08.2022 passed in Misc. [J] Case no. 44/2022, arising out of Misc. [Election] Petition no. 5/2022, by the learned District Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur. By the Order dated 23.08.2022, the learned District Judge dismissed the application, Misc. [J] Case no. 44/2022, which was preferred by the present writ petitioner as the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of the period of delay which had occurred in filing an election petition, which was registered and numbered as Misc. [Election] Petition no.5/2022.

2. The preceding events which have led the writ petitioner to prefer the writ petition can be exposited, in brief, at first.

3. On 09.02.2022, the State Government issued a Notification for election of ward commissioners to the Municipal Boards in the entire State of Assam. Dhekiajuli Municipal Board was one of the Municipal Boards where elections for the ward commissioners were to be held. The petitioner being a Scheduled Castes [SC] category candidate, desired to contest the election for the ward commissioner from Ward no. 10, Dhekiajuli Municipal Board. The petitioner was a nominated candidate of the political party, Indian National Congress and submitted her nomination papers accordingly, on 15.02.2022. Similarly, the respondent no. 5 submitted her nomination papers for contesting the post of ward commissioner from Ward no. 10 as a nominated candidate of another political party, Bharatiya Janata Party. The respondent no. 5 had claimed to have belonged to Other Backward Classes [OBC]category.

4. The petitioner has stated that after filing of the nomination papers by the petitioner, the respondent no. 5 and other candidates on or before the last date of submission on 15.02.2022, the nomination papers were scrutinized. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Clause [10] of the nomination form, a candidate had to submit his/her HSLC/HS Pass Certificate along with the nomination papers. The stage of scrutiny of the nomination papers was over on 17.02.2022. The nomination papers of the respondent no. 5 were accepted as valid after scrutiny. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted written complaints on 17.02.2022 and on 19.02.2022 before the Magistrate In-Charge/Returning Officer, Dhekiajuli Municipal Board election challenging the caste certificate and the documents pertaining to the academic qualification of the respondent no. 5. The grounds, according to the petitioner, for submission of the written complaints were that the respondent no. 5 had submitted false and fabricated documents and the said fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner from a reliable source. But, the Magistrate In-Charge/Returning Officer did not act on those written complaints. The petitioner had alleged that the Magistrate In-Charge/Returning Officer improperly accepted the nomination papers of the respondent no. 5, which were filed with false and fabricated documents.

5. It is not in dispute that election for the Dhekiajuli Municipal Board was held on 06.03.2022 and the results of the election for various wards were declared on 09.03.2022. In respect of the election for Ward no. 10, the respondent no. 5 was declared as the returned candidate, meaning thereby, the petitioner was an unsuccessful candidate.

6. As the petitioner had the belief that the respondent no. 5 was not eligible to contest the election, the petitioner in order to obtain information with regard to such ineligibility of the respondent no. 5, submitted an application before the State Public Information Officer [SPIO] & Assistant Commissioner, Tezpur under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [‘the RTI Act’, for short] on 28.03.2022. The SPIO had, in turn, forwarded the said application of the petitioner to the Executive Officer, Dhekiajuli Municipal Board on 29.03.2022 under Section 6[3] of

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 Back to top