http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: DANDA RAJESHWARI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BODAVULA HANUMAYAMMA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   212        1996 SCALE  (5)871

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The only  question raised  in this case is: whether the direction issued  by the High Court in the impugned order to file the  Election Petition within three weeks from the date of the disposal of the writ petition and after filing of the petition to  dispose of  the same,  without going  into  the question of  limitation is  valid in  law? The High Court of Andhra Pradesh  in the impugned order dated June 26, 1995 in Writ  Petition  No.11106  of  1995  and  batch  observed  as follows:      "We are not inclined to go into the      questions  raised   in  this   Writ      Petition. The  appropriate form  is      the Election  Tribunal. It  is open      to  the   petitioners  to  file  an      election  petition   within   three      weeks from  today  and  if  such  a      petition is  filed, the  same shall      be  entertained   by  the  Election      Tribunal  without   going  in   the      question of  limitation and dispose      it of  in accordance  with  law  as      expeditiously as  possible, in  any      event not  later than  four  months      from the  date  of  filing  of  the      Petition. No costs."      Shri B.  Nageshwara Rao,  counsel  for  the  petitioner placing reliance  on  Rule  3  of  the  A.P.  Panchayat  Raj (Election Tribunal) in respect of Gram Panchayats and mandal Parishads and  Zila Parishad  Rules, 1995  (for  Short,  the ’Rules’) Contended  that the  rules contemplate filing of an Election  Petition   within  30   days  from   the  date  of declaration of  the result  of the  election,  It  reads  as under:      "3(1) The  election petition  shall      be  presented  within  thirty  days

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    from the date of the declaration of      the result of the election.      Explanation:- If  the Court  of the      Subordinate Judge  or the  District      Munsiff, as the case may be, or the      Officer  of   the  Officer  of  the      Government  who   is  the  Election      Tribunal is  closed of the last day      of the  thirty days  Aforesaid, the      petition may  be presented  to  the      Election Tribunal  on the  next day      afterwards on  which such  Court or      Tribunal is open.      (ii) The  petition shall  contain a      statement  in   concise  form,  the      material   facts   on   which   the      petitioner    relies     and    the      particulars    of    any    corrupt      practices  which   he  alleges  and      shall where  necessary, be  divided      into      paragraphs       numbered      consecutively. It  shall be  signed      by the  petitioner and  verified in      the  manner   prescribed  for   the      verification of  pleadings  in  the      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."      The remedy is statutory remedy and limitation is one of the candidates  to entertain  election petition. By judicial order  the   limitation  cannot  be  nullified.  In  support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Union of  India &  Anr.  v.  Kirloskar  Pneumatic  Co.  Ltd. [(1996) 4  SCALE 317  ]. We find no force in his contention. It is not his case that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the  writ  petition  against  the  election  of  a Sarpanch and  declaration of the result of the election of a Sarpanch, etc.  The High  Court exercising  its power  under Article 226 of the Constitution declined to interfere in the election  disputes   since  alternative   remedy  of  filing election petition  and adjudication has been provided in the relevant statutory  rules. Far  from saying  that  the  High Court  has   no  jurisdiction,  High  Court  exercised  self restraint in  exercise of  the power  under Article  226 and directed the parties to avail of alternative remedy. In this admittedly, the  elections of  Sarpanch was  held result was declared on June 24, 1995 and the writ petition was filed on June 25,  1995. Power  of the  Government on  the process of electoral rolls was challenged in a batch of writ petitions. The writ  petition in  question is  also one  of  such  writ petitions. Under the circumstances the High Court thought it expedient  that  since  elections  were  already  held,  the disputed  questions  of  facts  would  be  canvassed  in  an election petition  as provided  In Rule  3 of the Rules, the High Court  rightly declined  to investigate  into  disputed question of  facts and  refused  to  go  into  the  question relegating the  parties to  pursue the  remedy  of  election dispute. In view of this the High Court has rightly directed filing of the election petition within three weeks from the date of  disposal of  the writ petition and further directed the Tribunal  not to  go into the question of limitation and instead decide the matter on merits. This Court in Kirlosker Pneumatic Co.’ case held as under:      "According to  these sub-section, a      claim for  refund or  an  order  of      refund     can  be   made  only  in      accordance with  the provisions  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    Section   27   which   inter   alia      includes the  period of  limitation      mentioned therein. Mr. Hidayatullah      submitted  that   the   period   of      limitation prescribed by Section 27      does not  apply either  to  a  Suit      filed by  the importer or to a writ      petition filed  by him  and that in      such cases the period of limitation      would  be   three  years.   Learned      counsel refers to certain decisions      of this  Court to  that effect.  We      shall assume  for the  purposes  of      this   appeal   that   it   is   so      notwithstanding the  fact that  the      said question is now pending before      a larger constitution Bench of nine      Judges   along   with   the   issue      relating to  unjust enrichment. Yet      the  question   is  whether  it  is      permissible for  the High  Court to      direct the  authorities  under  the      Act  to   act   contrary   to   the      aforesaid statutory  provision.  We      do not  think is, even while acting      under   Article    226    of    the      Constitution. The  power  conferred      by Article  226/227 is  designed to      effectuate the  law, to enforce the      Rule of  law and to ensure that the      several authorities  and organs  of      the State  act in  accordance  with      law.  It   cannot  be  invoked  for      directing the  authorities  to  act      contrary to law. In particular, the      Customs authorities,  who  are  the      creatures  of   the  Customs   Act,      Cannot be directed to ignore or act      contrary  to  Section  27,  whether      before or  after amendment.  May be      the High  Court or a Civil Court is      not bound  by the  said  provisions      but the  authorities under  the Act      are. Nor can  there be any question      of  the  High  Court  clothing  the      authorities with  its  power  under      Article 226 or the power of a civil      court,  No   such   delegation   or      conferment can  ever be  conceived.      We are,  therefore, of  the opinion      that  the  direction  contained  in      clause (3) of the impugned order is      unsustainable  in   law.  When   we      expressed  this   view  during  the      hearing Mr.  Hidayatullah requested      that in  such a  case the matter be      remitted to  the High Court and the      High Court  be left free to dispose      of the  writ petition  according to      law.      The ratio  of the  said decision  has no bearing to the facts of  this case. Therein, rules prescribed limitation to claim refund and the application was filed after limitation. The High  Court had directed refund ignoring the limitation. In that  context, it  was held that no direction or mandamus

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

could be issued to the authorities for disobeying the law.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.