Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to election petitions under the Panchayat Raj Act.

( 1 ) SRI Shiam Lal Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a very interesting question as to whether the Prescribed Authority under Section 12-C of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, is empowered to condone the delay in filing Election Petition beyond the period prescribed under Rule-3 of U. P. Panchayat Raj (Settlement of Election Dispute) Rules, 1994 or in other words whether the application of the Limitation Act is excluded by reason to Rule-3 of 1994 Rules. According to him the provision of the Limitation Act is not applicable in special Statute relating to the dispute regarding election and, therefore, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Revisional authority, condoning the delay in filing Election Petition long after 21 months is wholly without jurisdiction and, as such the writ petition is liable to be set aside.

( 2 ) SRI Pankat Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, on the other hand contends that by reason of Clause- (vi) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of 1994 Rules having provided that the Sub Divisional Officer may at any time dismiss the application, presented beyond time, indicates that it has given discretion to the Sub Divisional Officer, which pre-supposes application of the Limitation Act in the said Statute and relies on two decisions in support of his contention namely in the case of Bhakti Mandal v. Khajendra Bandhu Upadhyaya, AIR 1968 Calcutta 69 and on the decision in the case of Bhoureylal v. Kuni Behari Lal, AIR 1969 Rajasthan 299. Relying on the Calcutta decision he submits that there it has been held that the prescribed authority has power to condone the delay. Similarly relying on the decision in Rajasthans case he contends that Panchayat Raj Act being a local law by reason of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act the provisions of Section 4 to 24 becomes applicable.

( 3 ) SRI Rahul Sripat, learned counsel appearing with Sri P. K. Singh, points out that the provisions relating to Election dispute provided in the Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder is quite different from the provisions relating to election dispute provided in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and therefore, according to him the decision with regard to application of Limitation Act in respect to Election dispute under Representation of the People Act, 1951, cannot be attracted. He also points out that in the present case election having been found void because of ineligibility of the elected candidates, this question cannot be gone into and as such the orders were rightly passed.

( 4 ) ON the request of the Court Sri Arun Tandon, learned counsel agreed to act as Amicus Curiae in order to assist the Court. The Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Sri Tandon. He has referred to the case of hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, AIR 1974 SC 480 in support of his contention, that the provision of Section 29 (2) cannot be attracted in respect to Election petition under Representation of the People Act. According to him right to elect and right to be elected are statutory rights flowing from the Statute. Therefore unless it is provided from the Statute itself the provision of Limitation Act cannot be attracted. He further contends that the provision relating to election dispute provided in the Panchayat Raj Act are pari-materia similar to those under Representation of the People Act, 1951. He further relies on the decision in the case of anwari Basavaraj Patil v. Siddaramaiah, AIR 1994 SC 512 for the proposition. He also relies on the decision in the case of Ram Nandan v. District Judge, Sitamarhi, AIR 1980 Patna 180 where election was challenged under Bihar Panchayat Election Rules. There it has been held that the Limitation Act is also excluded in respect of Election petition under Panchayat Raj Act, on the anology that the provisions of Panchayat Raj Act and those of Representation of the People Act are pari-materia the same. He furth