Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 942 (ALL)

Mahendra v. State Of U. P.

2021-08-26

PRAKASH PADIA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Shukla Advocate along with Sri Anil Kumar Chaurasia learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Chandauli. 3. Facts in brief as contained in the petition are that State of U.P. notified the election of Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mugal Sarai District Chandauli on 12.10.2017. The aforesaid seat was reserved for Scheduled Castes Community. The petitioner as well as respondent No.2 namely Santosh Kharwar participated in the aforesaid election. The result of the aforesaid election was declared on 01.12.2017 in which respondent No.2 was declared successful. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid result, election petition which was numbered as Misc. Case No.5 of 2018 was preferred by the petitioner in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Chandauli in the Month of January, 2018. Objections were filed by the respondent No.2 in the aforesaid election petition. Apart from the various objections one of the objection was taken by the respondent No.2 that election petition was filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the election petition was rejected by the First Additional District Judge, Chanduli vide order dated 14.09.2020. Hence the present petition. 5. The election petition was dismissed solely on the ground that the same was not preferred within the time limit prescribed in Sections 20 and 22 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1916”). It is provided under Section 20 of the Act, 1916 that election petition shall be presented within 30 days after the day of which the result of the election sought to be questioned is announced by the Returning Officer. Section 22 of the Act, 1916 provided that election petition not complying with the provisions of Section 20 or upon which the requisite court fee has not been paid at the time of presentation or in such further time not exceeding fourteen days, the District shall be rejected the election petition. 6. Section 22 of the Act, 1916 provided that election petition not complying with the provisions of Section 20 or upon which the requisite court fee has not been paid at the time of presentation or in such further time not exceeding fourteen days, the District shall be rejected the election petition. 6. Section 20 and 22 of the Act, 1916 are reproduced below:- "Section 20:- From and presentation of election petitions:- An election petition shall be presented within 30 days after the day of which the result of the election sought to be questioned is announced by the Returning Officer, and shall specify the ground or grounds on which the election of the respondent is questioned and shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and set for the full particulars of any corrupt practices that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practices and the dates and place of the commission of each such practice. (2) The petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), for the verification of pleadings. (3) The petition may be presented by any candidate in whose favour votes have been recorded and who claims in the petition to be declared elected in the room of the person whose election is questioned or by ten or more electors of the municipality or by a person who claims that his nomination paper was improperly rejected. (4) The person whose election is questioned and, where the petitioner claims that any other candidate should be declared elected in the room of such person, every unsuccessful candidate who is not a petitioner in the petition shall be made a respondent to the petition. (5) The petition shall be presented to the District Judge exercising jurisdiction in the area in which the municipality, to which the election petition relates, is situate: Provided that the petition shall not be entertained by the District Judge unless it is accompanied by a treasury challan showing that the prescribed security has been deposited. Section 22. (5) The petition shall be presented to the District Judge exercising jurisdiction in the area in which the municipality, to which the election petition relates, is situate: Provided that the petition shall not be entertained by the District Judge unless it is accompanied by a treasury challan showing that the prescribed security has been deposited. Section 22. Hearing of election petition:- (1) An election petition not complying with the provisions of Section 20 or upon which the requisite court fee has not been paid at the time of presentation or with in such further time not exceeding fourteen days as the District Judge, as the case may be, may have granted , shall be rejected by such judge. (2) An election petition not rejected under sub-section (1) shall be heard by the District Judge." 7. Bare perusal of the provisions, quoted above, would go to show that qua election held under the provisions of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, forum has been provided for questioning the validity of election by way of filing election petition and therein it has been clearly and categorically provided for that election petition shall be presented within 30 days after the day of which the result of the election sought to be questioned. 8. Section 22 of the Act, 1916 on the other hand provides that an election petition not complying with the provisions of Section 20 or upon which the requisite court fee has not been paid at the time of presentation or within such further time not exceeding fourteen days as the District Judge, as the case may be, may have granted, shall be rejected by such judge. 9. From reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the election petition is to be produced within 30 days after declaration of the result by the Returning Officer and in case, there is defect which is reflected at the time of presentation, then District Judge has been given authority to give time not exceeding fourteen days in removing such defect. The scheme of things provided for under U.P. Municipalities Act, in no way confer authority on the District Judge, to entertain the election petition, even after expiry of period of presentation. 10. From perusal of the aforesaid facts of the case, it is clear that the election petition was not filed within the time prescribed under Section 20 of the Act, 1916. 11. 10. From perusal of the aforesaid facts of the case, it is clear that the election petition was not filed within the time prescribed under Section 20 of the Act, 1916. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. It is settled law that benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not available for the purpose of condonation of delay in entertaining the election petition filed beyond the limitation period, i.e., 30 days. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reji Thomas and others Vs. State of Kerala and others, reported in (2018ALL.C.J.1570)(S.C.), holding that in case of election petition, the Court has to adopt a strict interpretation of the law. Once the mechanism provided under the statute provides for a time schedule for preferring an election petition, in the absence of a provision in the statute for enlarging the time under any given circumstances, no court, whether the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can extend the period in election matters. In the matter of limitation in election cases, the Court has to adopt strict interpretation of the provisions. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Smita Subhash Sawant v. Jagdeeshwari Jagdish Amin and others, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 169 , though in a different context, has held at para 33 as follows:- "In the absence of any provision made in the Act for condoning the delay in filing the election petition, the Chief Judge had no power to condone the delay in filing the election petition beyond the period of limitation prescribed in law." 13. The similar view has been taken very recently by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Phool Kumari Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer Tehsil Maholi Distt. Sitapur & Ors. reported in 2021 (147) ALR 92. 14. In the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the election petition is absolutely perfect and valid and does not call for any interference by this Court. 15. In view of the above discussions, the petition devoid of merits and stands dismissed.