The petitioner, who had contested the election for the office of Adhyaksha of the Zila Panchayat, Jaunpur reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate, has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 12th October, 2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Jaunpur by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Limitation Act') for condoning the delay in filing the election petition to question the election of respondent No.4-Aneeta Rawat under Rule 33 of the Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayats (Election of Adhyaksha and Up-Adhyaksha and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 1994 Rules') has been rejected and consequently the election petition has been dismissed.

It transpires from the records of the writ petition that the petitioner was elected as a member of the Zila Panchayat, Jaunpur from Ward No.58 reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate and respondent No.4-Aneeta Rawat was also elected as a member of the Zila Panchayat from Ward No.23 reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. A notification dated 21st November, 2010 was issued for election of Adhyaksha of the Zila Panchayat, Jaunpur reserved for a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The petitioner contested the election in which respondent No.4-Aneeta Rawat was declared elected as Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat, Jaunpur on 12th December, 2010.

The petitioner contends that respondent No.4-Aneeta Rawat is not a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste as she belongs to the Backward Classes and, therefore, could not have been elected as a member of the Zila Panchayat or as Adhyaksha of the Zila Panchayat. The petitioner, accordingly, filed Writ Petition No.10418 of 2011 with a prayer that the District Magistrate may decide the representation filed by the petitioner for cancellation of the caste certificate of Aneeta Rawat-respondent No.4. The petitioner also filed Writ Petition No.74380 of 2011 for issue of a writ of quo warranto directing Aneeta Rawat to justify her continuance as Adhyaksha of the Zila Panchayat. These petitions were dismissed by the judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2011. With respect to Writ Petition No.10418 of 2010, the Court observed that the petitioner could file an appeal before the Appellate Forum while with respect to Writ Petition No.74380 of 2011, the Court observed that the petitioner could avail of the alternative remedy of filing an election petition.

The petitioner, accordingly, filed Election Petition No.219 of 2011 on 12th July, 2011 before the District Judge, Jaunpur under Rule 33 of the 1994 Rules. This election petition was accompanied by an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the election petition as the result was declared on 12th December, 2010 and under Rule 33 of the 1994 Rules the petition could be filed within thirty days from the date of declaration of the result. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act was rejected by the order dated 12th October, 2012 for the reason that the Limitation Act was not applicable to the election petition filed under Rule 33 of the 1994 Rules. It is this order dated 12th October, 2012 that has been assailed in this writ petition.

Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by Sri Ajeet Singh, submitted that the finding recorded in the impugned order that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to an election petition filed under Rule 33 of the 1994 Rules deserves to be set aside for the reason that the provisions of the Limitation Act would be applicable to the proceedings in view of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel submitted that the provisions of the Limitation Act are neither expressly nor by implication excluded