An election petition filed beyond the statutory limitation cannot be condoned under the Representation of People Act, 1951.

1. Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi in person on Delay Condonation Application No.2 of 2023 filed along with this election petition.

2. As per report of the stamp reporter, this election petition has been filed beyond time by 1458 days.

3. As per S.81 of The Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act, 1951'), election petition has to be presented within 45 days.

4. In Election Petition No.1 of 2014 ( Mohan Lal And Another v. State Of U.P. through Secretary to The Chairman And 7 Others) decided on 18.04.2014 and in Election Petition No.2 of 2021 ( Ram Nath Priyadarshi Suman v. The Chief Election Commissioner of India And 3 Others) decided on 23.07.2021, it has been held that an election petition presented beyond the period of limitation provided under S.81 of The Act, 1951, is a petition which does not comply with the statutory provisions of S.81 of The Act, 1951 and, consequently, it is liable to be dismissed. It has also been held that the provisions of the Limitation Act shall not apply to an election petition.

5. The judgement in the Election Petition No.1 of 2014 (Mohan Lal And Another vs. State Of U.P. through Secretary to The Chairman And 7 Others) decided on 18.04.2014 is reproduced below:

"The petition was adjourned on the last date.
No one appears for the petitioners even today even though the name of the counsel is printed in the cause list.
I have perused the petition.
This is an election petition filed by two petitioners for quashing the order dated 16.2.2013 declaring the election of Smt. Laxmi Gautam, respondent No.4 from the 31 Legislative Assembly (Reserve Constituency) Chandausi, U.P.
The election petition was presented on 13.2.2014.
The petition as per the office report dated 23.1.2014 is beyond time by 1 year 278 days. There is no objection against the said report.
S.81 of the Act provides for presenting an election petition on the pecified grounds within forty five days of the election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate and the dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates.
The petitioners in paragraph 6 of the petition states the election result was declared on 6.3.2012 and the respondent No.4 (wrongly mentioned as respondent No.5) was placed at serial No.1 meaning to have been declared elected.
The petition is therefore clearly beyond time as reported.
An election petition is not an action in common law or in equity but under a statute which provides that no election to the Parliament or to any State Legislature can be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Therefore, the rule of statutory limitation applies to election petitions.
The election petition which is in the nature of original proceedings has to be presented strictly within the limitation contained in the Act. There is no provision in the Act to condone the delay in its filing. The Act is a complete and a self contained code which does not admit introduction of the principles or the provisions of law contained in the Limitation Act and, therefore, the limitation Act is not applicable to the election petitions vide K. Venkereswara Rao and another Vs. Bekkam Narsimha Reddi and others AIR 1969 SC 872 .
In Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Misra AIR 1974 SC 480 it has been held that even if the special law i.e. Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 does not specifically exclude the provisions of S.4 to 24 of the Limitation Act nonetheless as the Act is a complete code in itself the provisions of the Limitation Act must be held to be necessarily excluded. Therefore, as the Limitation Act is not applicable to the