Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 178 (CHH)

LAXMAN SONBOIR v. B. D. QUIRESHI

2009-06-19

SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2009
JUDGMENT ( 1 ) HEARD. THE petitioner has challenged the validity of Election for the Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 65, Bhilainagar District Durg (C. G.), by filing this Election Petition under section 80, 80-A and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the Election Petition is barred by limitation by 8 days, therefore, the petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay in the filing the petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay of 8 days in filing the Election Petition may kindly be condoned. ( 4 ) SECTION 81 of the Act makes provisions for presentation of the petitions. Sub-section (1) provides 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 to the high Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier than, the date of election of returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of the election are different, the later of those two dates. ( 5 ) A perusal of the provisions of the Act would show that the said period of forty five days for the presentation of election petitions is mandatory and sacrosanct. Any election petition presented to the High Court beyond the prescribed period of forty five days cannot be entertained. The Act of 1951 is a self-contained code and the provisions of other acts like the Limitation Act etc. , do not apply to the presentation of the election petitions, therefore, no discretion or power of the Court can be exercised to condone the delay in filing the election petitions on any ground at all. Therefore, any application for condonation of delay in filing the election petition cannot be entertained and the election petition, which is barred by 8 days of limitation has to be dismissed summarily. ( 6 ) THE situation would be different if the 45th day from the date of declaration of the result of elections would be a closure day of the High Court. ( 6 ) THE situation would be different if the 45th day from the date of declaration of the result of elections would be a closure day of the High Court. In such an event, the election petition must be filed on the very first day on which the High Court re-opened after the 45th day, which was a closed day for the High Court in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the general Clauses Act, 1897 which provides that if under any Central Act or Regulation, any act 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 on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open. ( 7 ) IN the present case, the petition is barred by 8 days of limitation, therefore, this Court is left with no other way except to dismiss the petition summarily. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the election petition is dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .