The court emphasized that the applicability of the Limitation Act in filing an election petition depends on whether the special law is intended to be a complete code.

M. Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner has filed an Election Petition, under S.59 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, to get the election of the first respondent set aside. The election for Trikaripur Grama Panchayat was held on 27.9.2000 and the results were declared on 28.9.2000. The first respondent was declared elected as a member from Ward No. VII. The petitioner had filed an election petition on 8.11.2000 before the Munsiff's Court, Hosdurg. Thus, it was filed beyond the time prescribed under the Act. Taking note of the above, the learned Munsiff has dismissed the election as barred by limitation, evidenced by Ext. P3.

2. The petitioner challenges the above said order as the petitioner submits that sufficient reasons were given for condoning the delay in filing the election petition and art application under S.5 of the Limitation Act was maintainable.

3. I had heard the Standing Counsel for the Election Commission. He has submitted that there is no provision in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act for condoning the delay in filing an election petition as the time prescribed is absolute. An election petition has to be filed within 30 days of the declaration of results, under S.59 of the Act. If it is not filed as prescribed under S.93, the petition is liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that the explanation to the section provides that such an order is deemed to be an order passed under S.100. In such a situation, the petitioner has got a right of appeal as envisaged under S.113 of the Act. Therefore, the Standing Counsel submitted that even if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order an appeal is the proper remedy and not a petition under Art.226 pf the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj pointed out that the petitioner may not be entitled to get the remedy by pursuing with the appeal as the issue has finally to be resolved by this Court. Counsel relied on the decision reported in P. Sarathy v. State Bank of India ((2000) 5 SCC 355). It is pointed out that any authority or Tribunal having the trappings of a court would be a "Court" within the meaning of S.14 of the Limitation Act and notwithstanding the absence of any provisions in the Panchayat Raj Act as regards the applicability of the Limitation Act the petitioner's application under S.5 of trie said Act ought to have been taken notice of.

5. As the parties had joined issue, I may have to examine the matter. As has been pointed out by the Standing Counsel, there is a statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, but this has not been availed of as according to him, it may not be expedient. When there is a specific provision for appeal, especially in the matter like an election petition, direct recourse to extra ordinary jurisdiction may not be advisable, submits the Counsel for the Election Commission. But as the counsel for the petitioner points that this is a case where an appeal may not be efficacious, for the scope of examination is very limited. However, that is no reason for entertaining an Original Petition, since an appellate authority will be competent to pronounce upon the matter whether it be a question of law or a question of fact.

6. The applicability or otherwise of the Limitation Act in an election petition is no more a matter of doubt. I may straight away refer to the decision reported in Hukumdev v. Lalit Narain (AIR 1974 SC 480). A three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court had examined the issue and it was a case where the application of the Limitation Act as also application of 10 of the General Clauses Act had been the issue. It has been categorically held that the scope of examination is whether the scheme of the special law or the nature of the remedy provided therein are such that the Legislature intended it to be a complete code. The relevant portion which may be applicable herein is extracted herein below:

"23. In Charan Lai Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhattf 1973) 2 SCC 530 = (AIR 1973 SC 2464) it was held that there is