Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
Ajeet Nigam – Petitioner
Versus
Additional District Judge And Others – Respondents
Writ C. No. 26552 of 2024
Decided On : 26-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of procedural history and factual background regarding the election petition filed under the u.p. municipal corporation act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. parties' contentions on whether the period of limitation for filing an election petition can be extended by the closure of civil courts during summer vacations. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. applicability of section 10 of the u.p. general clauses act to computation of limitation when the court is closed on the last day of the prescribed period. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. analysis of binding precedents regarding the exclusion of the limitation act and the specific interpretation of court closures in election matters. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. conclusion that limitation period for election petitions is subject to section 10 gca; in the absence of valid proof of court closure hindrance, the petition remains time-barred. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT :
VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and Sri Akshat Sinha for respondent No. 2.
2. Though notices were issued to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 but as per the office report dated 23.10.2024, the notices have been delivered. Till the dictation of the orders, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
3. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any further affidavit. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.
4. The case of the writ petitioner, as worded in the present petition, is that the State Election Commission had issued a notification bearing No. 206/Ra.Ni.Aa.Anu.4/Na.Ni./2023/Lucknow dated 09.04.2023 for the election of Corporators in Nagar Nigam throughout the State of U.P. The writ petitioner herein claims to have contested the election of Corporator, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, Ward No. 96, Nehru Nagar-III, on the symbol of camera. Respondent Nos. 2, 5, and 6 also contested the said election, which was scheduled on 11.03.2023. The petitioner was declared elected as the Corporator of Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, Ward No. 96, Nehru Nagar-III, on 13.05.2023.
5. Being aggrieved by the declaration of the result of the Corporator, Ghaziabad Ward 96, Nehru Nagar-III, the respondent No. 2, Anil Swami son of Sri Krishna Bhargawa, instituted an Election Petition No. 20 of 2023 under Section 62 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, questioning the election of the writ petitioner before the Court of District Judge, Ghaziabad. The election petition was presented on 01.07.2023. On the presentation of the election petition, the Court of District Judge, Ghaziabad, issued notices to the defendants in the said election petition.
6. Written statements came to be filed on 08.01.2024 by the petitioner- defendant. However, as many as 11 issues were framed by the Court of District Judge, Ghaziabad, on 28.03.2024, which are as under.-
7. Vide order dated 31.05.2024 passed in Election Petition No. 20 of 2023, besides other issues, Issue No. 5 relating to the fact as to whether the election petition was time-barred or not was considered, the issue came to be decided in favor of the election petitioner and against the returned candidate (writ petitioner).
8. Questioning the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge Court No. 6, Ghaziabad, in Election Petition No. 20 of 2023, to the extent of deciding Issue No. 5 against the returned candidate (writ petitioner) in favour of respondent No. 2, the present petition has been preferred.
9. This Court entertained the writ petition on 04.09.2024 while passing the following order.-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that election of Corporator was held on 11.05.2023 and the result was declared
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 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 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.
An election petition must be presented within the statutory limitation period, and non-compliance with procedural requirements invalidates the petition, as confirmed by applicable case law.
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 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.
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.
Election petitions must be filed within 45 days of election results; failure to comply with statutory requirements leads to dismissal.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
