2018 (8) TMI 2143 - SC - Indian Laws

Election petition - time limitation - limitation for filing the election petition had expired - Order 7 Rule 11 - HELD THAT - In Charan Lal Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt 1973 (8) TMI 177 - SUPREME COURT , a two Judge bench held that there is no common law right to challenge an election since it is purely a matter of Regulation by the terms of the statute. The right being statutory, the terms of the statute must be complied with. 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 has failed to notice both the binding judgments of this Court and its own precedents on the subject, to which we have referred. The first Respondent filed an election petition in the first instance to which there was an objection to maintainability Under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Confronted with the objection Under Order 7 Rule 11, the first Respondent obviated a decision thereon by withdrawing the election petition. The 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 was hence liable to be rejected. The election petition filed by the first Respondent shall stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge of election petition under Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994
- Application for withdrawal of election petition and filing of a fresh petition
- Rejection of election petition based on limitation
- Interpretation of Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994
- Applicability of Limitation Act to election petitions
- Compliance with statutory provisions for filing election petitions

Analysis:

The judgment involved a case where the Appellant and the first Respondent contested elections for the post of Ward Councilor. The first Respondent filed an Election Petition challenging the election of the Appellant under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994. The Appellant filed an application for rejection of the petition on the ground of non-compliance with Section 176. The first Respondent withdrew the first petition and filed a fresh one, which the Appellant objected to based on limitation. The Trial Court rejected the fresh petition, but the District Judge and High Court overturned this decision, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.

The main contention was regarding Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994, which mandates the filing of an election petition within 30 days of the declaration of election results. The Appellant argued that non-compliance with this provision should result in outright rejection of the petition. The Respondent, on the other hand, sought to extend the period by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which was opposed by the Appellant.

The Supreme Court referred to past judgments to establish that the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 is a complete code for election petitions, and the statutory period of 30 days is strict without provisions for extension. The Court highlighted that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to election petitions governed by specific statutes. Therefore, the fresh election petition filed beyond the prescribed period was liable for rejection, despite the High Court's decision.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the election petition filed by the first Respondent. The Court emphasized the importance of compliance with statutory provisions and upheld the strict timeline for filing election petitions under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994.