http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: LACHHMAN DAS ARORA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GANESHI LAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/09/1999

BENCH: S.  RAJENDRA BABU, R.C.  LAHOTI.

JUDGMENT:

     DR.  A.S.  ANAND.  CJI :

     The  appellant herein is aggrieved by the dismissal of his  Election Petition by the learned Election Judge of  the High  Court of Punjab & Haryana on the preliminary issue  of limitation without trial.

     The  first  respondent  was declared  elected  to  the Haryana   Legislative   Assembly     from   Sirsa   Assembly Constituency   on   10.5.1996.    The  appellant,   defeated candidate,  called  in  question  his  election  on  various grounds  by  presenting an election petition on 1.7.1996  at 3.00  P.M.   in the Registry of the High Court of  Punjab  & Haryana.  The election petition was resisted and a

     preliminary  objection was raised by respondent No.  I to  the effect that the election petition had not been filed within  the period of 45 days as prescribed by Section 81(1) of  the Representation of the People Act.  1951 (hereinafter "the  Act")  and  was as such liable to be  dismissed.   The learned  Election  Judge  on the basis  of  the  preliminary objection, raised the following issue:-

     "Whether  the election petition has been filed  within the period of limitation?"

     Vide  judgment  dated 16th July, 1997, the  issue  was decided against the election petitioner and consequently the election  petition  was  dismissed.   In  holding  that  the petition  had been filed beyond the period of limitation  of 45   days,  the  learned  Election   Judge  relied  upon   a Notification issued by the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 27.11.1995.   by which calendar of summer vacations tor  the year  commencing 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1996 had been settled  by the High Court.

     Learned  counsel for the appellant, in challenging the impugned  judgment  of the High Court, submitted that  since the  High Court was closed for summer vacations between June I  and  June  30, 1996 (botii days inclusive)  the  election petition  presented in the Registry on the reopening day  of the  High Court on July 1.  1996.  was within the period  of limitation.   Reliance in this behalf was placed on  Section 10 of the General Clauses Act.  1897 and upon

     the judgments of this Court in Hari Shanker Trpathi v.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Shiv  Harsh and others, (1976) I SCO 897 and Simhadri  Satya Narayana  Rao  v.  M.  Budda Prasad and others, (1994)  Supp (1)  SCC 449, to urge that where the High Court is closed on account  of vacations, presentation of an election  petition on  the  next day following the vacations, would render  the election  petition to have been filed during the  prescribed period, if that period fell during the vacations.

     On  behalf  of  the returned candidate, on  the  other hand.   it  was asserted that since the  Notification  dated 27.11.1995  issued  by the High Court itself  provided  that though  the  High  Court  was to  remain  closed  for  civil business  during the summer vacations, it was to remain open for  the purpose of hearing an election petition,  therefore Section  10  of the General Clauses Act was  not  attracted. Reliance  in  support  of the submission was placed  on  the judgment  of this Court in Satbir v.  Smt.  Parsanni Devi  & others,  1987  (73)  Election  Law Reports  201,  wherein  a three-Judge   Bench   of  this   Court  had   considered   a Notification  issued  by the Punjab & Haryana High Court  on 20th November, 1981, in almost identical terms and held that since  for the purpose of hearing of election petitions  and filing  of  other  matters under the Representation  of  the People  Act,  the  Notification had provided  an  except  :. benefit  of  Section 10 of the General Clauses Act  was  not available  to  an election petitioner to file  the  election petition on the next day following the summer vacations.

     We   have  given  our   thoughtful  consideration   to submissions made at the bar.

     Section  81(1) of the Act deals with the  presentation of election petitions and provide:

     "81.   Presentation  of   petitions.-(l)  An  election called  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 to the High Court by any candidate  at such  election  or any elector within forty-five days  from. but  not earlier than the date o.  ’lection of the  returned candidate  or if there are more than one returned  candidate at  the election and dates of their election are  different, the later of those two dates"

     On its plain reading.  Section 81(1) Says 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 davs from.  but not earlier than. the  date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are  more  than one returned Candida..  at the election  and the  dates  of  their election are different, the  later  of those  two  dates.   The Act is a special code  providing  a period of limitation for filing of an election petition.  No period  for  filing  of an election petition  is  prescribed under  the  Indian  Limitation Act.  The Act insofar  as  it relates to presentation and trial of election

     disputes  is  a complete code and a special law.   The scheme  of  the  special law shows that  the  provisions  of Sections  4 to 24 of the Indian Limitation Act do not apply. If  an election petition is not filed within the  prescribed period of fortv-five days.  Section 86(1) of the Act.  which provides  that  the  High Court shall  dismiss  an  election

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

petition  which  does  not  comply with  the  provisions  of Section  81  or Section 82 or Section 117.  is  straightaway attracted.

     The   next  question,  however,   which   arises   for consideration  is whether Section 10 of the General  Clauses Act.   1897 can apply in a case where the prescribed  period of  limitation  expires  during the vacations  of  the  High Court?  Section 10 of the General Clauses Act reads :

     S.I 0- Computation of time.  (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 :  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 (XV of 1887) applies:

     The  proviso  to  Section 10 makes the  provisions  of Section 10 inapplicable to cases where the Indian Limitation Act applies and since Indian 5

     Limitation  Act  does not apply to election  petitions filed under the Act Section 10 of the General Clauses Act in term  would apply to the filing of election petitions  also. According  to Section 10 (supra) an act should be considered to  have  been done within the prescribed period, if  it  is done  on the next day on which the Court or office is  open. The  applicability  of  Section 10 (supra)  would,  however, depend  upon the facts of each case and the manner in  which the  High Court transacts its business during the period  of -^cations.

     The  Rules  and Orders of the Punjab and Haryana  High Court do not settle the calendar of summer vacations.  It is an  admitted  case of the parties that settlement of  summer vacations  is  done  by issuance of a  Notification;   which contains  all  matters connected therewith.  The Punjab  and Haryana  High Court had.  as in the previous years, issued a Notification  on 27.11.1995.  settling the summer  vacations and  providing  therein the manner in which the  High  Court would function during the summer vacations.

     Whether  the  benefit  of  Section 10  of  the  Genera Clauses  Act  can  be  availed  of to  save  the  period  of limitation  in the present case would therefore, depend upon the terms of the Notification issued by the Punjab & Haryana High  Court  on  27.11.1995.  That Notification  inter  alia provides :

     "It  is  hereby notified for general information  that the  Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh will be  closed for Civil

     business  except for hearing Election petitions or any other  matter  arising out of the Representation  of  People Act,  1951  urgent Civil Appeals’’Petinons  etc.   including

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

petitions  under  Art.  226 of the Constitution of India  on account  of  long vacations in the year 1996 from June I  to June 30, 1996 (both days .inclusive).  The court will resume sitting on July 1.  1996 (Monday).

     During  this  period  except on Sundays  and  Holidays Appeals/Petitions  etc.   will be received at the  Court  at Chandigarh from such persons as may choose to present them".

     (Emphasis ours)

     The  above  Notification unambiguously  provides  that during  the summer vacations i.e.  period between June I  to June  30, 1996 (both days inclusive) while the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh would remain closed for civil business,  it  would  be  open   for  "hearing  of  election petitions   or  any  other  matter   arising  out   of   the Representation  of  the People Act’.  The  learned  Election Judge  of  tlie  High Court was,  under  the  circumstances, justified  in  holding  that benefit of Section  10  of  the General  Clauses  Act  was  not available  to  the  election petitioner  to save the period of limitation as undisputedly the  election  petition had been filed, on reopening day  of the  High Court after summer vacations, but after the expiry of  the  period of forty-five days prescribed under  Section 81(1)  of  tlie  Act.  which period had expired  during  the period  of summer vacations.  In view of the clear  language of  the notification, there was no impediment in the way  of the appellant to present the

     election  petition  during the summer vacations.   The judgments in Hari Shanker Tripathi v.  Shiv Harsh and others and  Simhadri  Satya  Narayana Rao v.  M, Budda  Prasad  and others  (supra)  relied  upon  by learned  counsel  for  the appellant are clearly distinguishable.  In the notifications issued  in  those cases by the High Court of  Judicature  at Allahabad  and the Andhra Pradesh High Court,  respectively, the entire period of summer vacation was declared as "closed holidays"  in  the case of the High Court of Allahabad,  and for  the  entire period of Sankranthi vacation,  the  Andhra Pradesh  High  Court was also to remain closed.  Unlike  the notification   of   Punjab  &   Haryana  High  Court   dated 27.11.1995.   in  none  of the  Notifications  settling  the vacations  in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad  and tlie  Andhra Pradesh High Court, was any exception made with respect  to the hearing of election petitions or any  oilier matter  arising out of the Representation of the People Act. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act was.  in tliose cases, clearly attracted to save the period of limitation by filing an election petition, on the first reopening day of the High Court, since the prescribed period of limitation had expired during  the "closed holidays’ or ’Sankranthi vacations’.  It was  in tills fact situation that the cases of Hari  Shanker Tripathi  and  Simhadri  Safya Narayana  Rao  were  decided. Those  judgements, therefore, cannot advance the case of the appellant.  On the other hand, the judgment of this Court in Satbir v.  Pmt Parsanni Devi &

     others  (supra) which considered a Notification issued by  Punjab and Haryana High Court on an earlier occasion, in identical  terms  as  the   Notification  dated  27.11.1995, applies with all force to the facts and circumstances of the present  case.   In  Satbir’s case (supra)  the  benefit  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

Section  10  of  the General Clauses Act was denied  to  the election  petitioner  and the election petition,  not  filed within  the  period of forty-live days which expired  during the  summer vacations, but filed on the reopening day of the High Court after the summer vacations, was held as barred by time  because  of the exc ion contained in the  Notification regarding  the  hearing of election petitiotts etc.   during the period of summer vacations.

     We  are  not  impressed  by the  argument  of  learned counsel  for  the  appellant  that in view  of  the  serious charges  which  had  been   levelled  against  the  returned candidate  in  the election petition, the same ought not  to have  been  dismissed  on the ground of limitation,  as  the purity  of  election process is required to  be  maintained. There is no quarrel with the proposition that it is the duty of the Courts to maintain the purity of election promess but at  the  same  time there is no gainsaying that the  law  of limitation may harshly effect a particular party, but it has to  be  applied  with  all its vigour when  the  statute  so prescribes.    The  Courts  cannot   extend  the  period  of limitation  on  equitable grounds more particularly  in  the matter of filing of election petitions under the

     Act.   Since, it is a common ground that the  election petition  in the instant case had been filed one week  after the  expiry of the period of forty five days, it was clearly barred   by   time.   The  High   Court   was,   under   the circumstances,  fully  justified in dismissing the  election petition  on that ground.  We do not find any merit in  this appeal  which accordingly fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs.