http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: SIMHADRI SATYA NARAYANA RAO.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M. BUDDA PRASAD

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/12/1990

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

CITATION:  1990 SCR  Supl. (3) 701  1994 SCC  Supl.  (1) 449  1990 SCALE  (2)1302

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALA,  J.-  These special leave petitions  are  made respecting     the  judgments in L.P.A. Nos. 11 87  of  1981 and  1207 of 1981 of the High Court of Punjab  and  Haryana. The  petitioners were owners of certain lands of Burail  and Maloya village on the outskirts of Chandigarh which had been acquired for   public purpose pursuant to notification under Section 4(1) of the Land      Acquisition  Act,  1894   (for short  ’the  Act’)  published in  the  local  Gazette  dated February  1,  1977. The Land Acquisition  Collector  by  his award  under  Section II of the Act  determined  the  market value of the said lands at Rs 16,000 an      acre.       The District Judge at Chandigarh who had received the  reference under Section 18 of the Act enhanced the market value of the acquired  lands to Rs 34,000 an acre. The High Court  before which  appeals  had been brought by  the  claimants  seeking grant of enhanced market value for their lands, enhanced the market  value  to Rs 62,000 an acre  following  its  earlier judgment in similar      appeal  being  L.P.A. No.  1207  of 1981.   On  behalf  of  the  petitioners,  in  the   present petitions,   we were not shown any material on the basis  of which the      High  Court could have determined the  market value of the acquired lands at a rate in excess of Rs 62,000 an  acre.  Hence,  we see no ground to  interfere  with  the judgments of the High Court and enhance the market value  of the  acquired  lands. We, therefore, dismiss  these  special leave petitions, however without costs. 450   SIMHADRI SATYA NARAYANA RAO V. BUDDA  PRASAD   (Kuldip Singh, J.) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J.-The question for our consideration in  this appeal   is   whether  an  election   petition   under   the Representation  of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter  called the  ’Act’) filed on the reopening of the High  Court  after vacations, the period of forty-five days under Section 81 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

the  Act having run out during the vacations, was liable  to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Act. 2.The   elections  to  the  Andhra  Pradesh   Legislative Assembly  were  held on November 22,  1989.   The  appellant contested the assembly seat from Avinagoda constituency.  He was declared elected on November 26, 1989.  An election  451 petition calling in question the appellant’s election  could be presented to the Andhra Pradesh High Court within 45 days from  the date of declaration of the election-result of  the appellant.   It  is  not disputed that the  said  period  of fortyfive  days expired on January 10, 1990.   The  election petition,  challenging  the election of the  appellant  was, however,  filed  in  the High Court by  the  respondents  on January 15, 1990. 3.The  High Court of Andhra Pradesh remained  closed  for Sankranthi  vacation  from Tuesday, January 2nd  to  Friday, January  12th, 1990 (both days inclusive).  January  13  and 14, 1990 were holidays being second Saturday and Sunday.  It was under these circumstances that the election petition was filed  on  the reopening of the High Court  on  January  15, 1990. 4.The   appellant   (returned   candidate),   filed    an application before the High Court praying that the  election petition  be  dismissed,  inter  alia,  on  the  ground   of limitation.  It was contended that the Act being a  complete code  for  the  determination  of  election  disputes,   its provisions  have  to  be  strictly  complied  with  and  the election  petition  filed beyond the  period  of  forty-five days, was liable to be dismissed under Section 86 read  with Section 81 of the Act.  It was also contended that Section 5 of  the Limitation Act was not applicable, the  Registry  of the High Court was open during the Sankranthi vacation,  two Assistant   Registrars   were  on  vacation   duty,   urgent applications  were being disposed of by the vacation  Judges and 25 election petitions were in fact filed during the said vacations.   The High Court rejected the contentions of  the appellant  and  dismissed the application.  The  High  Court came  to  the  conclusion that  the  notification  regarding Sankranthi vacation did not make any distinction between the Court  and  the Registry of the High Court.   It  explicitly stated that the High Court would remain closed from  January 2, 1990 to January 12, 1990.  Relying upon Section 10 of the General Clauses Act the High Court found that the filing  of the election petition on the reopening day of the High Court on January 15, 1990 was within limitation.  This appeal  via special  leave petition is against the judgment of the  High Court. 5.This  Court  in Hukumdev Narain Yadav v.  Lalit  Narain Mishra1  and Hari Shanker Tripathi v. Shiv Harsh2  has  held that  Sections  4  and  5 of  the  Limitation  Act  have  no application to the election petitions under the Act.  It was further  held,  following  H.H. Raja Harinder  Singh  v.  S. Karnail  Singh3 that Section 10 of the General  Clauses  Act would in terms be applicable to the election petitions under the Act.  Section 10(relevant part) is as under:               "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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

             is done or taken on the next day afterwards on               which the Court or office is open:               Provided  that nothing in that  section  shall               apply  to any act or proceeding to  which  the               Indian Limitation Act, 1877, applies."               1 (1974) 2 SCC 13 3: (1974) 3 SCR 31               2     (1976) 1 SCC 897: 1976 UJ (SC) 242               3   1957 SCR 208: AIR 1957 SC 271: 12 ELR 421               452               6.The learned counsel for the parties have               not disputed the legal position that  Sections               4  and  5  of  the  Limitation  Act  have   no               application  to the election  petitions  under               the  Act.   It is also not disputed  that  the               benefit  of Section 10 of the General  Clauses               Act  can be availed to save  limitation  under               the  Act.  But according to the appellant  the               High Court Registry was open during Sankranthi               vacation and as such the respondent could  not               invoke  the  provisions of Section 10  of  the               General Clauses Act.               7.Mr  C. Sitaramiah, learned  counsel  for               the  appellant has argued that Rule 3  of  the               Rules framed by the High Court to regulate the               trial  of  election  petitions  provides  that               every election petition "shall be filed in the               office  of the Registrar by the petitioner  or               an  advocate duly appointed by him".   He  has               also  taken us through the notification  dated               December  29,  1989 issued by the  High  Court               notifying the Sankranthi vacation.  Relying on               the contents of the notification he  contended               that  the  High Court Registry  remained  open               during  the vacations and as such in terms  of               Rule  3  of  the  High  Court  Rules  election               petition   could  be  presented   during   the               vacations.  All the arguments advanced  before               the High Court were reiterated.  According  to               the  learned counsel, not only the High  Court               Registry was open but even the vacation Judges               sat  to  dispose of urgent  applications.   He               pointed out that in fact 25 election petitions               were  filed during Sankranthi  vacation  which               further  goes  to show that the  Registry  was               open.   The learned counsel finally  contended               that  unless  there  is specific  bar  in  the               vacation-notification  the election  petitions               can always be filed during long vacation.               8.There  are no rules or  standing  orders               issued  by  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High   Court               providing  for  a uniform pattern  of  working               during the vacations.  It is the  notification               notifying the Sankranthi vacation which  would               indicate the manner and extent of  functioning               of   the  High  Court  during  the   vacation.               Whether the Registry was open, if so, to  what               extent and for what type of work, can only  be               spelled   out   from  the  contents   of   the               notification.  It is, therefore, necessary  to               examine   the   scope  and   effect   of   the               notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh High               Court in this respect.  The said  notification               is as under:                     NOTIFICATION R.O.C. No. 5463/89-C3               DATED DECEMBER 29, 1989

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

             Notice is hereby given that the High Court  of               Andhra   Pradesh   will  remain   closed   for               Sankranthi Vacation, 1990 from Tuesday the 2nd               January to Friday the 12th January 1990  (both               days inclusive).               The Hon’ble Shri Justice N.D. Patnaik will  be               the  Vacation  Judge from January 2,  1990  to               January  6, 1990 and the Hon’ble Shri  Justice               Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri will be the Vacation               Judge  from  January 7, 1990  to  January  12,               1990.               The Vacation Judges will sit in Court at 10.30               a.m.  on  Wednesday the 3rd January  1990  and               Tuesday  the 9th January 1990 during  vacation               to  dispose of applications of  urgent  nature               unless otherwise notified.               Shri  K.V.G. Krishna Murthy and Shri  S.  Raja               Choudary  Assistant  Registrars  will  be  the               Vacation Officers during the said vacation.               Notice of any application of an urgent  nature               shall be given to the Vacation Officers before               1.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 2nd January and the  8th               January 1990.               REGISTRAR (ADMN)"                453 9.The  first  para  of the  notification,  which  is  the operative  part,  states  that "the  High  Court  of  Andhra Pradesh  will  remain closed for Sankranthi  vacation,  1990 from Tuesday the 2nd January to Friday the 12th January 1990 (both  days  inclusive)".  The notification  nowhere  states that  the  Registry  of the High Court  would  remain  open. Notice to the effect that "the High Court of Andhra  Pradesh will remain closed" cannot be understood by  layman-litigant to  mean  that it would still be open for  filing  purposes. After  the operative part which declares the closure of  the High  Court  for Sankranthi vacation, the  subsequent  paras specifically  indicate  the  matters which  could  be  filed during  the vacation.  It is stated that two Hon’ble  Judges would  be the vacation Judges for the specified  period  and they  would dispose of applications of urgent  nature.   The designation of two Assistant Registrars as vacation officers and  the provision of notice of urgent applications  to  the vacation  officers a day earlier of sitting of the  vacation Judges,  goes to show that the Registry was not  functioning in the ordinary course.  A bare reading of the  notification leaves no manner of doubt that the Andhra Pradesh High Court remained closed for all purposes except for applications  of urgent  nature  for  which  vacation  Judges  and   vacation officers were designated.  There was no provision for filing of  election petitions in the notification and as  such  the filing  of  the  election petition  by  the  respondents  on reopening  day of the High Court by invoking Section  10  of the General Clauses Act, was justified. 10.In   Hari   Shanker  Tripathi  v.   Shiv   Harsh2   the notification issued by the Allahabad High Court stated  that May 25 to July 7, 1974 would be observed as closed  holidays in  the High Court due to summer vacation.  The  period  for filing  the election petition had expired during the  summer vacation  and  the  election  petition  was  filed  on   the reopening  day of the High Court after the summer  vacation. This Court held as under: (SCC p. 906, para 12)               "For the reasons given above we are  satisfied               that  as  the  period  of  limitation  expired               during the summer vacation which was a  closed               holiday  by virtue of the notification  issued

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

             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 further  satisfied               that this is a case in which Section 10 of the               General  Clauses Act applies in terms and  the               appellant  was fully justified in  filing  the               election petition on the reopening day of  the               High Court, namely, July 8, 1974." 11.We  do not agree with the contention of  Mr  Sitaramiah that  in  the  absence of any bar in  the  notification  the election  petitions  under the Act can be filed  during  the vacations.  It is the vacation notification which has to  be looked  up  to  find out whether the Registry  is  open  for presenting the election petitions.  The notification in this case  unmistakably stated that the High Court  would  remain closed  during  Sankranthi vacation.  No  reasonable  person would  knock the door of the High Court during  that  period for filing an election petition. 12.The   Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  which  issued   the Sankranthi vacation notification interpreted the same in the following words:               It,  therefore, follows that the  notification               referred to above, dated December 29, 1989 did               not permit either of the Hon’ble Judges or the               Registry  to  receive the  election  petitions               during the Sankranthi vacation.  As  mentioned               already,  the notification says that the  High               Court of Andhra               454               Pradesh will remain closed for the  Sankranthi               vacation  from January 2, 1990 to January  12,               1990  (both days inclusive).   The  nomination               does  not clarify that the Judges of the  High               Court  alone would refrain from  work  between               January 2, 1990 and January 12, 1990 and  that               the  Registry would function  normally  during               the said period of vacation.  The notification               does   not  even  further  specify  that   the               vacation  officers are authorised  to  receive               any  papers  presented  to  them  other   than               notices of applications of urgent nature.   In               the light of the specific wording contained in               that notification, I bold that the High  Court               of  Andhra  Pradesh remained  closed  for  the               Sankranthi  vacation from January 2,  1990  to               January 12, 1990 which means that the Registry               of the High Court also remained closed  during               the said period.               It is submitted by the learned counsel for the               petitioners  that the High Court Registry  was               open during the vacation and received as  many               as 25 election petitions.  It is not necessary               in these applications to consider whether  the               Registry  was  competent to receive  those  25               election petitions during the vacation.   This               is  not  a  relevant  consideration  for   the               disposal  of these applications.  What all  is               necessary to consider in these applications is               whether in the light of the wording  contained               in  the notification dated December 29,  1989,               the High Court remained closed between January               2,  1990 to January 12, 1990 so as  to  enable               the election petitioners to invoke Section  10

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

             of the General Clauses Act....               The   learned  counsel  for  the   petitioners               referring to the wording contained in  Section               10 of the General Clauses Act tried to draw  a               distinction between the closure of the ’court’               and ’office’ on the last day of limitation and               tried to submit that what all has been  closed               is  the High Court but not the office.   There               is no scope to draw such an inference from the               notification.   As I have  mentioned  already,               the  High  Court of Andhra  Pradesh,  remained               closed  for  the Sankranthi vacation  and  the               notification  does  not  give  room  for   any               distinction  being made between the court  and               the  office  which means the Registry  of  the               High Court." 13.We see no infirmity in the reasoning and the  conclusions reached by the High Court.  No other point was urged  before us.   We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with no order as  to costs. 456