9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Withdrawal of election petition under Section 110 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. Substitution of a petitioner in place of the party withdrawing the election petition within the prescribed period. 3. Calculation of the period of limitation for filing substitution applications. 4. Interpretation of Section 110(3)(b) and (c) of the Act regarding publication of withdrawal notice. Analysis: 1. The judgment revolves around an election petition filed by a respondent challenging the election of a candidate as a member of the Assam Legislative Assembly. The respondent sought a direction for recounting of votes and to declare the election void under Section 100(l)(d) (iii) and (iv) of the Act. The election petitioner later filed an application under Section 109 to withdraw the petition, which was allowed after due process of publication of withdrawal notices. Subsequently, the appellant filed applications seeking permission for substitution under Section 100(3)(c) of the Act, which were dismissed by the High Court on the ground of limitation as per Section 110 of the Act. 2. The key issue addressed in the judgment is the procedure for withdrawal of election petitions under Section 110 of the Act. It is highlighted that if there are multiple petitioners, withdrawal requires the consent of all petitioners. The judgment emphasizes that the High Court must direct the publication of the withdrawal notice in the Official Gazette and any other specified manner. Furthermore, within 14 days of such publication, a person eligible to be a petitioner may apply for substitution, subject to compliance with conditions set by the High Court. 3. The judgment clarifies the calculation of the period of limitation for filing substitution applications. It points out that the period of 14 days for substitution applications should commence from the date of publication of the withdrawal notice in the Official Gazette. In this case, the High Court erred in calculating the period from the publication in a newspaper instead of the Official Gazette. As a result, the applications filed by the appellant were within the statutory period when calculated correctly from the Official Gazette publication date. 4. The interpretation of Section 110(3)(b) and (c) is crucial in this judgment. The Court emphasizes that publication in the Official Gazette is mandatory, and any additional publication methods specified by the High Court are supplementary. The judgment underscores that the period for substitution applications starts from the Official Gazette publication date. By correcting the error in calculating the limitation period, the Court sets aside the High Court's dismissal of the substitution applications and remands the case for further proceedings in compliance with the Act. In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment provides a detailed analysis of the withdrawal and substitution procedures under the Representation of the People Act, emphasizing the mandatory requirements for publication and the correct calculation of the limitation period for filing substitution applications.
|
