9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Whether the election petition was filed within the prescribed time limit. 2. Applicability of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to the election petition. 3. Legal significance of the High Court being closed for summer vacation. 4. Whether the Registrar could entertain the election petition during the High Court's summer vacation. Detailed Analysis 1. Whether the election petition was filed within the prescribed time limit The appellant contested the election results declared on April 30, 1974, and filed an election petition on July 8, 1974. The High Court dismissed the petition as time-barred under Section 86(1) read with Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, since it was filed beyond the 45-day limitation period, which expired on June 14, 1974. 2. Applicability of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to the election petition The appellant argued that the petition was not time-barred due to the High Court's summer vacation, invoking Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. This section allows for an act or proceeding to be considered timely if done on the next day the court or office is open, provided the last day falls on a closed holiday. The Supreme Court found that Section 10 applied because the High Court was closed from May 25 to July 7, 1974, making June 14, 1974, a closed holiday. Thus, the appellant was justified in filing the petition on July 8, 1974. 3. Legal significance of the High Court being closed for summer vacation The High Court's notification declared the summer vacation as closed holidays. The Supreme Court held that the period of limitation expired during these closed holidays, and Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applied. The appellant was entitled to file the petition on the reopening day, July 8, 1974. The Court distinguished this case from Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, where the limitation expired on a working day, emphasizing that the High Court was closed during the appellant's limitation period. 4. Whether the Registrar could entertain the election petition during the High Court's summer vacation The High Court had ruled that the Registrar could receive the petition since the office was open. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Registrar's ability to receive petitions is a judicial function, not merely administrative, and could not be exercised when the Court was closed. The Court emphasized that the rules required the petition to be presented to the Registrar and then referred to the Chief Justice for assignment, which could not occur during a closed holiday. The Supreme Court cited Krishna Dhan Mullick v. Umestuwl Zohra Began, supporting the view that the Court being closed means the Registrar cannot entertain petitions. Conclusion The Supreme Court concluded that the election petition was timely filed on July 8, 1974, under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, as the limitation period expired during the High Court's closed holidays. The High Court's ruling that the petition was time-barred was legally erroneous. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for trial in accordance with the law, with no order as to costs.
|
