The main legal point established is that substantial compliance with statutory requirements, such as the period of limitation and the attestation of copies, can be sufficient to uphold the validity of an election petition.

E.P. No.22/1977 is a petition presented under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 challenging the election of the respondent as a member of the House of the People from the Lakshadweep, a Union territory. The petitioner and the respondent were the contesting candidates. Poll was taken on 16-3-1977. The counting of votes took place on 20-3-1977 and on the same day the Returning Officer declared the respondent as elected. The election of the respondent is challenged mainly on the ground that the respondent is guilty of corrupt practices. In answer to the summons from court the respondent entered appearance and filed a written statement traversing the allegations made in the petition, and contending inter alia that the petition is barred by limitation. On the basis of the pleadings issues were raised

on 11-7-1977: and issue No. 2 is in the following terms:

"Whether the petition is barred by limitation?". The respondent filed C. M. P.9879/77 praying that the issue relating to limitation may be heard before proceeding with the trial of the petition. I am referring to the parties as they figure in the main petition. The petitioner did not object to issue No. 2 being heard preliminarily.

2. The contentions raised by the respondent are two-fold. In the first place it is argued that the relevant petition was filed beyond the period prescribed in Section 81 (1) of the Representation of the People Act. According to that provision the petition has to be presented within 45 days from, but not earlier than the date of the election of the respondent. The respondent was declared elected on 20-3-1977. So normally the petition had to be filed on or before 5-5-1977. But the petition was filed in court only on 23-5-1977. So prima facie the petition was laid

beyond the time prescribed by law. The answer of the petitioner is that since the High Court was closed for summer vacation he had time till 23-5-1977 to file the election petition. It is common case that by notification No. D6-41831/76(1) dated 19-11-1976 the summer vacation commenced from 11th April 1977 and lasted till 21st May 1977 (both days inclusive). Reliance is placed on Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, Act 10 of 1897. Section 10 reads as follows:

"10 (1). Where, by any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open:

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any act or proceeding to which the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 applies.

(2) This section applies also to all Central Acts and Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887."

The contention of the respondent is that during the summer vacation there was no closing of the court within the meaning of Section 10 (1) of the General Clauses Act. So the crucial question is whether the court could be deemed to have been closed from 11-4-1977 to 22-5-1977. According to the respondent the High Court could not be deemed to have been closed during the summer vacation, and in support of that contention the respondent relied on Sec. 8 of the Kerala High Court Act, Act 5 of 1959. I may read the provision.

"8 (1) During the adjournment of the High Court the Chief Justice shall nominate a single Judge of the High Court for the hearing of all matters which require to be immediately or promptly dealt with and such Judge shall have all the powers of the High Court, except in cases in which such power must be exercised under the provisions of any law by more than one Judge.

x x x x"

According to the respon