Modi, J.— This is an application for writ by Sajjan Singh and Maharaval Laxman Singh under Art. 226 of the Constitution and arises under the following circumstances.

2. The petitioners were respectively a voter and a candidate in and from the Aspur Assembly constituency in this State at the general election held in early 1957. Opposite parsy No.1 Bhogilal was declared to have been duly elected as a member from the Aspur constituency to the legislative Assembly of the State as a result of the said election. Sajjan Singh filed an election petition on the 23rd April, 1957, before the Election Commission, praying that the election of Bhogilal Pandya be set aside and that the petitioner No. 2 Maharaval Laxmansingh the, rival contesting candidate be declared as duly elected from the said constituency. Sumairnath Gurtu, District and Session Judge Udaipur, was appointed by the Election Commission as a Tribunal to try his election petition in July, 1957. The Commission fixed the 23rd July, 1957, as the date for the parties to appear before the Tribunal and ordered notices to be issued accordingly. On the 12th August, 1957. Bhogilal Pandya filed a recriminatory petition under Sec. 97 of the Representation of the People Act (No. XLII1 of 1951) as amended (hereinafter called the Act) before the Tribunal, and also made the security deposit on the same date. The petitioners objected to the aforesaid petition being entertained as barred by time, the ground being that the petition in question had been filed beyond 14 days from the date of the commencement of the trial, (which was said to be the 23rd July 1947) and further that the deposit required by sec. 117 of the Act had also been made beyond the limit of 14 days as prescribed in sec. 97 of the Act. The opposite party Bhogilal Pandya met this objection in the following way. It was urged that the 14th day from the 23rd July, 1957, was the 5th August, 1957. but the single member Tribunal did not sit at Udaipur from 5th to the 10th August, 1957, and that 10th August was a gazetted holiday and the 11th August was Sunday and further that the Tribunal had not appointed any one to receive petitions in its absence and, therefore, the recriminatory application which was filed on the 12th August, 1957, was properly filed. Reliance was placed on sec. 10 of the General Clauses Act in support of the argument.

3. This plea prevaled with the Election Tribunal and it found that the Tribunal did not sit at Udaipur from the 5th to 11th August, 1957, and that it sat for the first time on the 12th August and also that it had not appointed any body to receive petition and the security deposit having been filed on that date were within time. The petitioners seek to challenge this order by the present writ petition.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the order of the Election Tribunal is erroneous on the very face of it as it had no authority in law to extend the time for filing the recriminatory petition or making the deposit in that connection beyond the limit of time fixed by sec. 97 of the Act, and that such an order was without jurisdiction and consequently we should quash it by a writ of certiorari, and that we should issue a further writ prohibiting the Tribunal from proceeding with the trial of the recriminatory petition against the petitioners.

5. The main question for determination in this case is whether the recriminatory petition, to which objection is taken, was filed within the period prescribed by the proviso to sec. 97 of the Act. Now, the ground which has prevailed with the Election Tribunal is that the Tribunal did not sit at the place of trial (which was fixed at Udaipur) on and from the 5th August, 1957, to the 11th August, 1957 and no official had been appointed by the Tribunal to accept petitions or notices on behalf upto the 11th August, 1957, and the before, the recriminatory petition was filed within time on the 12th August. 1957. The Tribunal drew support for the conclusio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document