9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (2) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was assigned as a Judge to hear the election petition by the Chief Justice and the learned Judge framed 20 issues in the case. Issue No. 8 related to the question as to whether the election had been properly presented and was within time. As Issue No. 3 related to the maintainability of the petition on the point of limitation, the learned Judge took up this matter as a preliminary issue, and after, hearing the parties he held that the petition having been filed beyond time merited dismissal under Section 86(1) read with Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The election petition of the appellant was accordingly dismissed by the High Court by its order dated February 19, 1975 and it is against this order that the present appeal has been preferred in this Court. 2. The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass. It is not disputed that the results of the election were declared on April 30, 1974 and normally the election petition should have been filed in the High Court on within 45 days from this date Accordingly the period of limitation expired on June 14, 1974. The petition was, however, presented before the Registrar on July 8, 1974. The appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en but the petition was filed on Saturday which though a working day of the Court was not a day on which the Judges were usually sitting. Secondly the learned Judge appears to have completely overlooked the provisions of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, particularly in view of the fact that this Court has held that Section 4 or 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to the election petitions. 6. To begin with we would first deal with the case of Hukumdev Narain Yadav (1) (supra) what had happened in that case was that the election petition was filed on March 20, 1972 instead of being filed on Saturday March 18, 1972 which was the last day on which the limitation expired. The election petitioner sought to cross the bar of Limitation on the ground that Saturday not being a working day of the Court, the petitioner was entitled to file the petition on the next working day, namely, Monday. this Court on a consideration of various factors negatived this contention and held that even though the Judges of the High Court did not usually sit on Saturdays it was undoubtedly a working day of the Court and it would not be said that the Court was observing a closed holiday on Saturday. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being a closed holiday right upto July 7, 1974, then Section 10 of the General Clauses Act would apply in terms and the appellant would be fully justified in filing the petition on July 8, 1974 when the Court reopened after the summer vacation. The relevant portion of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act runs thus: 10. (1) Where, by any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the Act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open: provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any act or proceeding to which the Indian Limitation Act, 1877, applies Analysing the section it would appear that the following conditions must be satisfied before a litigant may take advantage of the protection of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act: (1) that any act or proceeding is allowed to be done or taken in any court or office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anguage of Rule 2(6).... The operation of such a beneficent enactment as Section 10 of the general Clauses Act is not, in our opinion, to be cut down on such unsubstantial grounds as have been urged before us. We are accordingly of opinion that the petition which the respondent filed on May 18, 1954, is entitled to the protection afforded by that section and is in time. In these circumstances, therefore, Section 10 of the General Clause Act furnishes a complete answer to the reasons given by the learned Judge in holding that the election petition filed by the appellant in the High Court was barred by time. 8. Another reason given by the learned Judge was that even though the High Court was closed its office was open and the Registrar was available to receive any election petition. This reasoning of the High Court fails to consider the distinction between the opening of the Court and opening of the office White the Court maybe closed, the office may remain open for conducting ministerial business or administrative work. So far as the election petitions are concerned they are matters of moment and if the power to receive these petitions was delegated to the Registrar by the Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court vacation. If the period expires on a closed holiday it is not disputed that the time would be excluded in computing the period of six weeks. This is done under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act (X of 1897). ...The fact that the Court for its own convenience deputes certain officers to receive the money does not give them a separate existence and it cannot be urged that while the Court is, closed the office is open. There may be days when the learned Judges are not sitting and yet the Court may not be closed, but if the Court is closed then it cannot be said that the ministerial officers attached to the Court are an office within the meaning of the term in Section 10 of the General Clauses Act and they have a separate existence from the Court. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the observation made by the Division bench in the aforesaid decision, and in fact this clearly brings out the real distinction between the functioning of the office of the High Court and of the High Court itself. 9. Further more, it would appear from Rule 10 of Ch. V of the Allahabad High Court Rules, that this is the only provision which empowers the Vacation Judges to hear cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances, therefore, the analogy drawn by the learned Judge from that case does not hold good in the facts of the present case 11. Mr. S.N. Misra appearing for the respondents advanced two contentions before us. In the first place he drew our attention to Rule 3 of Chapter I of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the relevant part of which may be extracted thus: Registrar' includes- (i) the Deputy Registrar at Lucknow, in matters relating to the Lucknow Bench; (ii) the joint Registrar or any other officer, with respect to such functions and duties of the Registrar as may have been assigned to the joint Registrar or such officer by the Chief Justice, and (iii) in the absence of the Registrar the joint Registrar or any other officer authorised to act on his behalf; Rule 3 no doubt provides that the Registrar includes the Deputy Registrar and other officers. Rule 4 of Chapter I would have no application to the present case because this rule applies only to such cases where the period of limitation is prescribed by the Rule?. In the instant case, the period of limitation is not prescribed by the Rules made by the High Court of Allahabad but by Section 81(1) of the Repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tracted as follows: 87. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as maybe, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the code of Civil procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits. provided x x x In the instant case the Court having framed the rules under the Representation of the people Act which provided for the presentation election petitions to the Registrar, which as have held could only be done on a day which is not a closed holiday, the term closed holiday would have to be referred to as defined by the High Court Rules and not by Section 2(1)(h) of the representation of the people Act. In these circumstances, therefore, the contention of the respondents on this score must be over-ruled. 13. For the reasons given above we are satisfied that the period of limitation expired during the summer vacation which was a closed holiday by virtue of the notification issued by the High Court, the Registrar was not competent to entertain the election petition nor could the appellant have presented the election petition legally to the Registrar during such period. We are fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
