Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 476 (UTT)

SUMAN RAWAT v. Minta Devi Chauhan

2009-09-10

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 02.09.2009, passed by the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Election Petition No. 71 of 2008, Smt. Suman Rawat Vs. Smt. Minta Devi and another. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding recorded by the learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in the impugned order pertains to the issue of limitation, wherein it has been held that the election petition is barred by time. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that counting of votes for the post of Block Pramukh, Pabo, was done on 05.10.2008, and on that date result was declared, in which respondent No. 1 Smt. Minta Devi Chauhan, was declared elected. Rule 35 of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayats (Election of Pramukh and Up Pramukh ad settlement of election disputes) Rules 1994, provides 30 days time for filing the election petition from the date of declaration of result. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that election petition was presented before the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal on 04.11.2008. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that learned District Judge has erred in law by including both 05.10.2008 and 04.11.2008, in calculating the period of 30 days for filing the election petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 (winning candidate) argued that the District Judge has rightly included both the dates, as the date on which the result was declared, cannot be excluded. 5. Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (applicable to State of Uttarakhand) reads as under: “9. Commencement and termination of time – In any Uttar Pradesh 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 last in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word “to”. 6. 6. In view of the above provision of law, the learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, has evidently committed error of law in holding that the election petition is barred by time, by including 05.10.2008, in calculating the period of 30 days for filing the election petition. In Tarun Prasad Chatterjee Vs. Dinanath Sharma (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 694, the Apex Court, in a similar situation, has held that in calculating the period of limitation, in the light of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the date on which the result was declared is to be excluded. 7. Having considered submission of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order and other papers on record, this Court is of the view that for the reasons as discussed above, the impugned order dated 02.09.2009, passed by the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.09.2009, is hereby quashed. The issue No. 3 stands disposed of in negative. The District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, shall proceed further with the trial of the election petition. (Stay Application No. 7974 of 2009 also stands disposed of, accordingly).