Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1079 (RAJ)

RAMLAL KASVA v. DHAIRYAVARDHAN SINGH

2017-04-25

ALOK SHARMA

body2017
ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. Vide impugned order dated 19.09.2016 the Trial Court has allowed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1963') filed along with election petition filed by the respondent-election-petitioner (hereinafter 'election petitioner') under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1994') and Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1994') and condoned delay of 42 days in filing the election petition. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Considered. 3. A perusal of the Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 makes it plain that an election petition has to be filed within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result. The limitation as provided is a special limitation and applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing an election petition under Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 is impliedly barred. For this reference can be made to the multiple judgments such as in the case of Dropadi v. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gangapur City [(2002)1 W.L.C. 603], and Banwari v. The Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Kotputli & Ors. SBCWP No.15565/2010 decided on 03.02.2012 both relating to election petitions under the Act of 1994. Reference can also be made to the judgments of the Apex Court in the context of the limitation in filing election petitions under the Representation of People's Act, 1951 such as in the case of Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra [ (1974)2 SCC 133 ] and G.V. Sreerama Reddy & Anr. v. Returning Officer & Ors. [ 2009(8) SCC 736 ] to emphasize the same point. 4. Counsel for the petitioner-returned candidate (hereinafter 'returned candidate') has however mechanically supported the impugned order dated 19.09.2016 without much legal foundation. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 19.09.2016 is liable to be quashed and set aside. The application under Section 5 of the Act of 1963 requires to be remanded to the Trial Court for it to educate itself with State of law on the application of Limitation Act, 1963 to election petitions filed under Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994. The application under Section 5 of the Act of 1963 requires to be remanded to the Trial Court for it to educate itself with State of law on the application of Limitation Act, 1963 to election petitions filed under Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994. The Trial Court should now pass an order afresh on the Section 5 application under the Act of 1963 filed by the election-petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 42 days, over the 30 days, provided under Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 for filing of the election petitions. This be done within a period of one week from the presentation of a certified copy of this order. 6. In the facts of the case it is directed that further proceedings in election petition shall remain stayed till an order is passed afresh on the remanded application under Section 5 of the Act of 1963. 7. The petition stands accordingly allowed.