Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1621 (PAT)

Rina Devi v. State Of Bihar

2007-10-03

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.9.2007 of the election tribunal (Sub-Judge, Bhojpur, Arrah) in Election Case No. 12 of 2006 by which she has sought to condone the delay in filing the election petition and entertain the election petition. The petitioner was elected as a member of Zila Parishad and her election was sought to be challenged by respondent no. 6 by the election petition. There is no dispute that the election was filed beyond 30 days from the date of declaration of result. 3. Respondent No. 6 pursuant to notice has appeared. State and the Election Commission are represented. 4. The only question is whether the election tribunal (Sub-Judge) had jurisdiction in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the election petition. 5. On behalf of petitioner reliance has been placed in the case of Nand Gopai Singh V/s. State of Bihar & Ors., 2007 2 PLJR 698 wherein this specific question has been decided in favour of the petitioner therein and it has been held that the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply and election tribunal has no jurisdiction. This decision has been affirmed in L.P.A. No. 243 of 2007, which was dismissed on 28.5.2007. It has been categorically held that in terms of Rule 106 of the Panchayat Election Rules the period of 30 days is not extendable and the tribunal has no power to condone the delay. Apart from that it would be seen that where Section 3 of the Limitation Act creates a bar. It refers to suits instituted, appeal preferred and applications made whereas the power to condone the delay is in relation to appeal and an application. Original proceedings like suits are not included in Section 5. That in my view, is an additional reason why Section 5 will have no application even if for the sake of argument the submission of learned counsel for respondent no. 6 that in terms of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act was to apply. 6. In that view of the matter, Section 5 of the Act having no application to original proceedings It would not apply to election petition. That being so and being bound by the judgment as referred above. 6 that in terms of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act was to apply. 6. In that view of the matter, Section 5 of the Act having no application to original proceedings It would not apply to election petition. That being so and being bound by the judgment as referred above. I find that this writ petition is to be allowed and the election petition in question, ought to have been dismissed on grounds of limitation alone. 7. This writ petition is accordingly allowed.