Saikta, J.:- The petitioner prays for a writ In the nature of prohibition and/or certiorari in the matter of Election Case No. 2 of 1981 pending before the Election Commissioner for Haflong- cum- Assistant District Judge No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, directing him not to proceed with the election case without deciding the preliminary issue viz., that the election petition is barred by limitation. 2. Mr. N. M. Lahiri, the learned Advocate General, Megh­alaya canvasses two points before us viz., (1) that the election petition was filed beyond time in contravention of Rule 180 of the Assam Autonomous District (Constitution of District Council) Rules, 1951; and (2) that the Election Commissioner has been calling for a number of documents which are not relevant in the context of the pleadings of the petition. 3. Under Rule 180 of the Assam Autonomous District Constitution of District Council) Rules 1951, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' an election petition is required to be presen­ted by any candidate or elector within sixty days from the date on which the result of the election is published in the Gazette. Admittedly, the result of the election called in question was published in the Gazette on 18.3.1980. The election petition was presented on 17. 5.80. The material question is whether the election petition was presented "within 60 days from the date on which the result of the election is published in the Gazette." Rule 3 of the Rules deals with interpretation In case of doubt, and 3 (1) provides : "Except where the context other­wise requires, the General Clauses Act, 1897, and the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915, shall apply for the interpretation of these rules as they apply for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of the State of Assam, as the case may be." We have examined the relevant rules but do not find anything in the context to suggest that this particular provision has to be interpreted otherwise than in accordance with the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915. Section 9 of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915 provides as follows :- "9. Section 9 of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915 provides as follows :- "9. Commencement and termination of time,-In any Act it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word "from" and for the purpose of inclu­ding the last in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word "to." This provision is in part maleria with sub-section (1) of section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The expression as to limitation in rule 180 is also similar to one in section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, namely, "within forty-five days from". 4. In K. V. Rao vs. B. N Reddy, AIR 1968 SC 872 it has been held that even though the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to an election petition, the provision like sections 9 and 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 providing for computation of time which are in part materia with section 12 (1) and 4 of the Limitation Act would apply to such a petition. Under Rule 2 (4) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) shall apply for the interpreta­tion of those rules as that applies for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament. The provisions in section 9 of the General Clauses Act as well as the Assam General Clauses Act clearly state that in any Act it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days, to use the word "From" and for the purpose of including the last in a series of days, to use the word "to" commuting the series of days in the instant case in conformity with that provision, the date of Gazette notification of the result viz., 18.3.80 has to be excluded and the series will begin with 19.3.80. When so computed, there cam be least doubt that the petition presented on 17.5.80 was within sixty days of Gazette notification. The above opi­nion of ours finds support from the decision in T. C. Basappa vs. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440 . ln that case rule 119 of the Election Rules framed under the Representation of the People Act came up for consideration. The above opi­nion of ours finds support from the decision in T. C. Basappa vs. T. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440 . ln that case rule 119 of the Election Rules framed under the Representation of the People Act came up for consideration. Under that rule, and elec­tion petition was to be presented at any time after the publi­cation of the name of the returned candidate, but "not latter than 14 days from the date of publication of the notice in the official gazette under rule 113, that the return of election expenses of such candidate and declaration made in respect thereof have been lodged with the Returning Officer." In that case the election petition was despatched by the petitioner by registeied post to the Election Commission on 11th of April, 1952 and it reached the Commission on the 14th of April follo­wing. Supreme Court took it therefore that 14th of April was the date when the election petition was to be deemed to have been presented to the Election Commission. It was not disputed that the notice of the return of election expenses was publi­shed in the Mysore Gazette on the 31st. March, 1952 and the petition therefore was held to be just in time as it was presen­ted within and not latter than 14 days from that date. This means that 31st. March was excluded from the series of days. On the basis of the above decisions we hold that in the instant case the date of gazette notification of the result viz. 18.3.80 has to be excluded and the election petition presented on 17.5.80 was presented within sixty days. We do not find any internal evidence in the rules so as to have excluded the application of the General Clauses Act and the Assam General Clauses Act in the context or otherwise in the rules as laid down in rula 3 (1) of the Rules. The submission that the Rule 180 is so clear that there is no need for resorting to the General Clauses Acts cannot be accepted as the Rule has used the word “from" which needs interpretation. 5. The second point relates to the calling of some docu­ments as prayed in the application. The submission that the Rule 180 is so clear that there is no need for resorting to the General Clauses Acts cannot be accepted as the Rule has used the word “from" which needs interpretation. 5. The second point relates to the calling of some docu­ments as prayed in the application. Annexure 'C' to the petition, particularly item No. 4 in the Schedule to that application which relates to tour diary of Shri T. Changsen, respondent No. 1 duriag the period from Feb/80 to Mirch/80 while acting as Executive Member of the N.C. Hills District Council along with his T.A. Bills pertaining to his tour during the Said period. The learned Advocate General also draws OUF attention to Annexuce 'D' where only two dates appears to be relevant. The objection is that the petitioner in his election petition has only stated by way of material particulars that the respondent visited Numjanj villags with Government vehicle on 3.3.1980 and held election meeting there and again on 4.3.1980 he visited Pangmol village with Government vehicle No. 158 in connection with his election campaign in that village. It is submitted that by calling all the documents included in the Schedule, scope may be given to make a fishing or roving enquiry. Sitting as we are in writ jurisdiction, it may not be proper for us to examine these matters in detail, but we find no reason as to why the Election Com­missioner should not deal with only such evidence as are admi­ssible and relevant in the context of the pleadings and proof of the election petition. 6. In the result, this petition is found to be without merit and it is rejected. The rule is discharged. The stay order stands vacated. Under the facts and circumstance; of the case we make no order as to cost. Let the learned Election Commission dispose of the election petition expeditiously. Send down the records forthwith.