9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the election petition was filed within the prescribed period of limitation. 2. Whether the presentation of the election petition to the Bench Clerk was proper. 3. Applicability of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act to the filing of the election petition. 4. Compliance with the requirement of obtaining a certificate from the Stamp Reporter before presenting the election petition. Summary: Issue 1: Filing Within the Prescribed Period The election of Respondent No.1 to the Bihar Legislative Assembly was challenged by the appellant through an Election Petition. The returned candidate filed an application u/s 81(1) read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, seeking dismissal of the election petition on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. The High Court dismissed the petition as time-barred. The Supreme Court noted that the election result was declared on 1.4.1995, and the petition was presented on 17.5.1995, one day beyond the prescribed 45-day period. Issue 2: Presentation to the Bench Clerk The appellant argued that the petition was ready and handed over to the Bench Clerk on 16.5.1995, but could not be presented in open Court due to the Court's closure after an Obituary Reference. The designated election Judge opined that the presentation to the Bench Clerk was improper and not in conformity with the High Court Rules, which require presentation in open Court. Issue 3: Applicability of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act The Supreme Court held that since the Court was effectively closed after 3.15 P.M. on 16.5.1995, the presentation of the petition on the next working day (17.5.1995) was valid u/s 10 of the General Clauses Act. The Court emphasized that law does not expect a party to do the impossible and that the petition should be considered filed within the prescribed period due to the Court's closure. Issue 4: Certificate from the Stamp Reporter The respondent argued that the petition was not properly presented as it lacked a certificate from the Stamp Reporter. The Supreme Court noted that this argument was not considered by the designated election Judge and left it open for the respondent to raise this issue during the trial. The appellant was also given the opportunity to resist this plea in accordance with law. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 3.10.1997, and directed that the election petition be tried on merits by the designated election Judge expeditiously. There was no order as to costs for this appeal.
|
