Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 570 (KER)

E. M. Anandavally v. T. Ajitha & Ors

2001-10-12

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2001
Judgment :- The Judgment was delivered by : 1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply for condoning the delay in filing Election Petition under Section 89 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 2. Election to Ward No.VII of Trikaripur Grama Panchayat was held on 27.9.2000 and results were declared on 28.9.2000. First respondent in the writ petition was declared elected. Writ petitioner filed Election Petition on 8.11.2000 before the Munsiff's Court, Hosdurg. Since the same was filed beyond the time prescribed under the Act, learned Munsiff dismissed the Election Petition holding that the same was filed beyond the time prescribed under Section 89 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Learned single judge found no infirmity in the order passed by the Munsiff. Accordingly writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been filed. 3. When the matter came up for hearing, we heard counsel for the appellant Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj as well as Sri.K.Chandrasekharan, Senior Counsel appearing for the returned candidate. Facts are not disputed. 4. The question to be considered, as we have already indicated is, whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply for condoning delay in filing the Election Petition under Section 89 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 5. Counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner submitted that since Kerala Panchayat Raj Act has not specifically excluded the provisions of the Limitation Act, petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay is maintainable. Reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Sathish Babu v. State of Kerala 2000 (3) KLT 551) wherein this court considered the question whether Limitation Act can be made applicable for maintaining a petition under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting & Assignment) Act, 1971. The court took note of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and held that the conditions laid down in the said Act have been satisfied in that case for attracting Section 5 of the Act to petitions filed under Section 8 of the Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. Consequently it was held that the Forest Tribunal has got power to condone the delay. 6. Consequently it was held that the Forest Tribunal has got power to condone the delay. 6. We are of the view that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case, with regard to an application filed for setting aside election under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 7. Chapter X of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act deals with disputes regarding election. Section 87 of the Act says that no election shall be called in question except by an election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X. Section 89 deals with presentation of election petitions. Election petition calling in question election may be presented within thirty days from, but not earlier than, the date on which the returned candidate was declared elected. Further Section 93 stipulates that the court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 89 or Section 90 or Section 115. Statute does not confer any power to any of the authorities to condone delay in filing an election petition. Time for filing an election petition has been prescribed in Section 89 itself. In this connection we may also refer to Article 243-O (b) of the Constitution which states as follows : 243-O Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters : - Notwithstanding anything in this Constitutions : (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for under any law made by the Legislature of a State. In view of the aforementioned constitutional provision, election petition has to be presented in such manner as provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State. Procedure for presenting an application has been laid down in Section 89 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. In view of the aforementioned constitutional provision, election petition has to be presented in such manner as provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State. Procedure for presenting an application has been laid down in Section 89 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Since constitutional provisions specifically say that election petition shall be presented in such manner as provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State, we have to follow the procedure laid down in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act for entertaining an election petition and to deal with the same. Therefore, any application, filed beyond the time prescribed in Section 89 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act cannot be entertained. We may indicate we have to strictly interpret the provisions of an election statute especially in the matter filing petition calling in question any election or challenging the result of an election. 8. In such circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned Munsiff in dismissing the application since it was filed beyond the time prescribed under the statute. Appeal therefore lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed.