IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
Jay Prakash And Another - Petitioners
Versus
Anjula Singh Mahaur And Another - Respondents
ELECTION PETITION NO.1 OF 2024.
Decided On : 15-03-2024
JUDGMENT
Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.
Heard Sri. Shiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the election petitioners.
2. The petitioners describe themselves as `electors' from Hathras, Sadar Constituency in the election of the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh. By means of the present election petition, they seek to impugn the election of respondent no.1 at the last concluded Assembly Election-2022.
3. Undisputedly, the respondent no.1 was declared successful at that election, on 10.3.2022. section 81(1) of the Representation of The People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') reads as below:
4. The present Election Petition was presented before this Court on 8.2.2024. On that date, it was reported beyond time by 655 days.
5. In such undisputed facts, it has to be first tested if the present Election Petition is competent i.e. entitled to be entertained, at all. For that consideration, the Court does not propose to doubt or test the correctness of the facts disclosed in the present Election Petition. The averments made in the Election Petition may be examined on their face value.
6. For the above purpose, learned counsel for the election-petitioners has invoked Section 17 of the Limitation Act. For ready reference, Section 17 of the Limitation Act reads as below:
A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P.
Hukumdev Narayan Yadav v. Lalit Narain Misra
K. Venkereswara Rao v. Bekkam Narsimha Reddi
The limitation period for election petitions under the Representation of the People Act is strict and cannot be extended, and claims of fraud must be substantiated with evidence.
The Representation of People Act, 1951 mandates strict adherence to the limitation period for filing election petitions, and non-compliance results in dismissal without consideration of merits.
The Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to election petitions under the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, and petitions filed beyond the specified timeframe are not maintainable.
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 time....
The election petition was dismissed for being filed beyond the 45-day limit set by the Representation of People Act, 1951, with no provision for condonation of delay.
Election petitions must comply with mandatory provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including timely filing and joining necessary parties, or they will be dismissed.
The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply to election petitions under the U.P. Municipalities Act, as governed by special procedural laws.
Timeliness is crucial in election petitions; even minimal delay is not condonable, leading to automatic dismissal under the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Election petitions must be filed within 45 days of election results; failure to comply with statutory requirements leads to dismissal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.