IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the filing of an election petition must be strictly interpreted in accordance with the statutory time limits, and procedural delays in registration do not invalidate a timely filing.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the record on board.

2. Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 03.7.2023 passed by District Judge, Muzaffarnagar whereby election petition filed on behalf of respondent No.2 under section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (in brevity ‘Act, 1916’.) has been admitted and ordered to be registered as well as, simultaneously, notices were ordered to be issued to the defendant Nos. 2 to 11.

3. Facts culled out from the record are that election of Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar was held on 04.5.2023 in pursuance of the notification promulgated on 09.4.2023. The present petitioner has been declared successful as President of Nagar Palika Parishad. Having been aggrieved with the result of the election declared on 13.5.2023, respondent No. 2 has filed an election petition on 09.06.2023 under Sections 19 and 20 of Act, 1916. Aforesaid election petition was filed during summer vacation along with an application under Rule 13 of General Rules (Civil), 1957 (in brevity ‘Rules, 1957’) with a prayer to entertain the election petition. Said application was rejected, vide order dated 09.6.2023, and next date fixed viz. 02.07.2023 for hearing on admission of the election petition. On the first opening day, after summer vacation, in the month of July i.e. 01.7.2023, the election petitioner has moved miscellaneous application to entertain and register the election petition inasmuch as 01.07.2023 was the last date for the purpose of limitation to register the same and 02.07.2023, already fixed in the matter, was Sunday. Learned District Judge has rejected said miscellaneous application on the same day i.e. 01.7.2023 and fixed next date on 3.7.2023 for registration of the election petition. On the next date fixed i.e. 3.7.2023, election petition has been admitted and ordered to be registered, which is under challenge before this Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order impugned dated 03.7.2023, has advanced two fold submissions; first, regarding the delay in filing the election petition on the ground that under section 20 of the Act, 1916 prescribed period of limitation is only 30 days since the date of result announced. However, in the instant matter, election petition has been filed and entertained on 03.7.2023, therefore, election petition was filed at belated stage. She has laid emphasis on Section 10 of General Clauses Act, 1963 and tried to submit that first opening day i.e. 01.7.2023 was the last date of limitation to entertain the election petition under section 20 of Act, 1916. However, election petition has been filed and entertained on 03.7.2023, thus, election petition was time barred. It is further submitted that law relating to the election petition is a special law, therefore, same may strictly be adhered to without any relaxation or laxity at the part of any party. The prescribed period of limitation as enunciated under Section 20 of the Act, 1916 is mandatory in nature. Therefore, court cannot extend the prescribed period of limitation for filing the election petition on its own wisdom unless there is a provision under the law to condone such delay. It is next submitted that previously the election petition was refused to be registered twice vide orders dated 09.6.2023 and 01.7.2023 respectively, however, same have not been assailed before any competent court, therefore, aforesaid orders became final between the parties qua registering and admitting an election petition filed by respondent No 2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in her second submission, has questioned maintainability of the election petition on two grounds; first, nonjoinder of the State as a defendant in the election petit