Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – s. 176 – Election petition – Applicability of Limitation Act, when appeal filed after the period prescribed under the Act – Held: Election petition must be filed within a period of 30 days of the date of the declaration of results – Said period cannot be extended – Provision of s. 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is clearly excluded – Election petition which is filed after the prescribed period is barred by Limitation and is liable to be dismissed – On facts, grant of liberty to file a fresh election petition cannot obviate the bar of limitation – Fresh election petition filed by the first respondent was beyond the statutory period of 30 days, thus, is dismissed – Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 14. On facts, first respondent was permitted to withdraw the election petition challenging the election of the appellant-returned candidate, with liberty to institute a fresh petition. Thereafter, the first respondent filed a second election petition. Appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the election petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. First respondent then filed an application u/s. 5 read with Section
14 of the Limitation Act that if the limitation for filing the election petition had expired, the period spent between the filing of the earlier petition and its withdrawal may be excluded. Trial Court allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11. However, the District Judge as also the High Court set aside the same. Hence, the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is a complete code for the presentation of election petitions. The statute has mandated that an election petition must be filed within a period of 30 days of the date of the declaration of results. This period cannot be extended. The provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 would clearly stand excluded. The legislature having made a specific provision, any election petition which fails to comply with the statute is liable to be dismissed. The High Court failed to notice both the binding judgments of this Court and its own precedents on the subject. The first respondent filed an election petition in the first instance to which there was an objection to maintainability under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Confronted with the objection under Order 7 Rule 11, the first respondent obviated a decision thereon by withdrawing the election petition. On facts, grant of liberty to file a fresh election petition cannot obviate the bar of limitation. The fresh election petition filed by the first respondent was beyond the statutory period of 30 days and hence is dismissed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 9, 10] [33-F-H; 34-A, B]
Joginder Singh v Baldev Singh 2010 (1) PLR 769 ; Rashpal Singh @ Rachpal Singh v Jasvir Singh
2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 408 ; Chet Ram v State of Punjab 2010 (4) PLR 718 ; Darshan Singh v Karamjit Singh 2012 (2) PLR 831 ; Parkasho v Bhola Devi 2012(3) PLR 541; Deepa Mangla v Nanak Chand
CR No 523/2013 decided on 06.02.2015 ; Hukum Dev Narain Yadav v Lalit Narain Mishra (1974) 2 SCC
133 : [1974] 3 SCR 31 ; Charan Lal Sahu v Nandkishore Bhatt (1973) 2 SCC 530 : [1974] 1 SCR 294 ;
Lachhman Das Arora v Ganeshi Lal (1999) 8 SCC
532 : [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 174 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.