9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 2143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice 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. - Dipak Misra, C.J.I. And Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. For Appearing Parties: Kaveeta Wadia, Shashank Tripathi, Shish Pal Laler, Johri Mal, Sonit Sinhmar and Devesh Kumar Tripathi, Advs. JUDGMENT Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The Appellant and the first Respondent contested elections for the post of Ward Councilor, from Ward No. 18 of the District Council of Mahendergarh. The results of election were declared on 28 January 2016. The Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Limitation Act has already been filed, therefore, the irregularity, if any, stand cured. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 is a complete code for the presentation and adjudication of election petitions. Counsel submitted that an election petition has to be instituted Under Section 176 within 30 days from the date of the declaration of the results of the elections. An election petition which does not comply with Section 176 must be rejected outright. Learned Counsel submitted that this view has consistently been followed in several decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to which a reference was made. These are: Joginder Singh v. Baldev Singh 2010 (1) PLR 769 paras 6 7, Rashpal Singh @ Rachpal Singh v. Jasvir Singh 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 408, Chet Ram v. State of Punjab 2010 (4) PLR 718, Darshan Singh v. Karamjit Singh 2012 (2) PLR 831, Parkasho v. Bhola Devi 2012 (3) PLR 541 and Deepa Mangla v. Nanak Chand CR No. 523/2013 decided on 06.02.2015. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first Respondent submitted that a triable case arises against the Appellant for s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on or by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with or violation of the provisions of the Constitution of India or of this Act, or any Rules or orders made under this Act, election of such returned candidate shall be set aside and fresh election may be held.;] (b) If, in any case to which [clause (a) or Clause (aa)] does not apply, the validity of an election is in dispute between two or more candidates, the court shall after a scrutiny and computation of the votes recorded in favour of each candidate, declare the candidate who is found to have the largest number of valid votes in his favour, to have been duty elected: Provided that after such computation, if any, equality of votes is found to exist between any candidate and the addition of one vote will entitle any of the candidate to be declared elected, one additional vote shall be added to the total number of valid votes found to have been received in the favour of such candidate or candidates, as the case may be, ele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This Court held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not govern filing of election petitions or their trial. 7. In Charan Lal Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt (1973) 2 SCC 530, 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. 8. A three Judge bench of this Court in Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal (1999) 8 SCC 532, construed the provisions of Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1951, which prescribes a period of 45 days to file an election petition. Chief Justice Dr AS Anand, speaking for the Court, held thus: 7. On its plain reading, Section 81(1) lays down that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 of the Act to the High Court by any candidate at such election or by an elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier than, the date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
