SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1848

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

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners: In Person, Shiv Kumar Singh

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.

Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 81 and 86 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 17 - Election petition challenging the election of a candidate on grounds of fraud - Petition filed 655 days late - Court held that the limitation period is rigid and cannot be extended under the Act - The petitioners failed to substantiate claims of fraud and did not demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering it. (Paras 4, 10, 24)

(B) Election petitions - The High Court must dismiss petitions that do not comply with statutory provisions regarding limitation - The Act is a complete code, and the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to election petitions. (Paras 13, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, electors from Hathras, challenged the election of the respondent, who was declared successful in the Assembly Election-2022, alleging fraud in claiming Scheduled Caste status to contest a reserved seat. The petition was filed 655 days late, invoking Section 17 of the Limitation Act. (Paras 2, 4, 10)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the election petition was not competent due to the delay in filing and the failure to substantiate claims of fraud. The petition was dismissed as it did not comply with the provisions of the Act. (Paras 24)

Issues: The main issues were whether the election petition could be entertained despite being filed late and whether the claims of fraud were substantiated. (Paras 10, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the limitation period for election petitions is strict and cannot be extended, and the petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence of fraud or reasonable diligence in discovering it. (Paras 13, 24)

Result: The present Election Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

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:

    "81. Presentation of petitions.- (1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in [sub-section (1)] of section 100 and section 101 to the [High Court] by any candidate at such election or any elector [within forty-five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates]."

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:

    "17. Effect of fraud or mistake.-(1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act,-

    (a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or

    (b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or

    (c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or

    (d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him, the period of limitation shall not begin to run until plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production:

    Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit to be instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which-

    (i) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase know, or have reason to believe, that any fraud had been committed, or

    (ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable consideration subsequently to the transaction in which the mistake was made, by a person who did not know, or have reason to believe, that the mistake had been made, or

    (iii) in the case of a concealed document, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the concealment and, did not at the time of purchase know, or have reason to believe, that the document had been concealed.

    (2) Where a judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force, prevented the execution of a decree or order within the period of limitation, the court may, on the application of the judgment-creditor made after the expiry of the said period extend the period for execution of the decree or order:

    Provided that such application is made within one year from the date of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top