2005 (3) TMI 785 - SC - Indian Laws

Election petition - Barred by limitation - whether an election petition presented at 4.25 p.m. on 27.8.2003, the last date of limitation, admittedly 10 minutes after the Judge had risen from the open court but was available in chambers within the court premises can be said to be a valid presentation so as to be within the period of limitation? - HELD THAT - If the court is open, it is desirable that a formal presentation of the election petition is made to the Judge while sitting in open court. As the Judge himself is not expected to scrutinize the defects in the election petition presented to him, Rule 6 expects the election petition to be presented first to the Stamp Reporter of the court and then carried to the Judge for formal presentation. While presentation to the Stamp Reporter of the court is a presentation, the presentation before Judge in open court is a formal presentation. There would be nothing wrong if the election petitioner presents the election petition to the Stamp Reporter whereafter the election petition is carried to the Judge in open court either by the election petitioner or his counsel or by the Stamp Reporter or any official of the Registry under his directions. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, seems to have thought that the election petition could have been presented only to the Judge and that too in the open court. The Judge would ordinarily sit in open court upto 4.15 p.m. of the day as per the rules or practice of the High Court but that time is not the end of that day. The availability of time falling within the meaning of the word 'day', as provided by Section 81 of the Act, cannot be curtailed by making a provision in the rules contrary to the Act itself. Ordinarily, no litigant and lawyer would like to delay the presentation till the fag end of the day and then present it at an odd time to the inconvenience of the Judge wherever he may be. However, exceptional situations cannot be completely ruled out. It would be better if the ministerial act of receiving the election petition presented to the High Court is left to the administrative or ministerial staff of the High Court either by clarifying or by making a suitable amendment in the Rules of the Patna High Court. The learned designated Election Judge of the High Court has erred in holding the presentation to be barred by limitation. The view so taken cannot be countenanced. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 10.9.2003 is set aside. The election petition is held to have been filed within prescribed period of limitation. The High Court shall now proceed to deal with the petition in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the election petition was presented within the period of limitation.
2. Interpretation of the relevant High Court Rules regarding the presentation of election petitions.
3. The role of procedural law in the context of presenting election petitions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Presentation within the Period of Limitation:
The primary issue was whether an election petition presented at 4:25 p.m. on 27.8.2003, ten minutes after the designated Election Judge had risen from the open court but was still available in chambers, could be considered valid and within the period of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the statutory period of limitation provided by Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allows 45 days from the date of election for presenting an election petition, could not be curtailed by the procedural rules of the High Court. The Court emphasized that the term "day" as per the English calendar begins at midnight and covers a period of 24 hours, thus allowing the petition to be presented up to midnight of the last day.

2. Interpretation of High Court Rules:
The Court examined Chapter XXI-E of the Patna High Court Rules, particularly Rules 6 and 7, which govern the presentation of election petitions. The rules state that an election petition should first be presented to the Stamp Reporter before being formally presented to the Judge in open court. The Supreme Court noted that these rules are intended to streamline the procedure and ensure smooth functioning but are not meticulously drafted to cover all scenarios. The Court clarified that the presentation to the Stamp Reporter and the formal presentation to the Judge are two steps of one transaction, which can occur on the same day. The Court also stated that if the Stamp Reporter is unavailable, the petition can be presented directly to the Judge, who can then send it for scrutiny.

3. Role of Procedural Law:
The Court reiterated that procedural law should serve justice and not obstruct it. It cited previous judgments, emphasizing that procedural prescriptions are meant to aid justice and not act as a barrier. The Court held that the ministerial act of receiving an election petition could be performed by administrative or ministerial staff of the High Court, not necessarily by the Judge alone. The Court also referred to the principle that law does not expect a party to do the impossible, supporting the view that the election petition presented on the next working day, given the circumstances, would be valid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the election petition presented at 4:25 p.m. on 27.8.2003 should be deemed within the period of limitation. The High Court's interpretation that the petition could only be presented to the Judge in open court was incorrect. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the election petition was held to be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The High Court was directed to proceed with the petition in accordance with the law, with no order as to costs in the appeal.