TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JJ. JUDGMENT The short question involved in the present appeal is whether in computing the period of limitation as provided in Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951(hereinafter mentioned as "R.P. Act, 1951"), the date of election of the returned candidate should be excluded or not. The appellant and the respondent herein contested the election of the Legislative Assembly held on 25.11.1998 from 127, Raipur Gramin Assembly Constituency of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant was declared elected on 28.11.1998. The respondent filed an Election Petition under Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 challenging the election of the appellant. That Petition was filed on 12.1.1999. The appellant filed an application under Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 81. Presentation of petitions. (1) 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 the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidates at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates. Explanation. In this sub-section, "elector" means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not. (3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the returned candidate. Prior to Act No. 27 of 1956, the period of limitation for presentation of election petition was not provided in Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951. The period of limitation for presentation of election petition was provided under Rule 119 of Representation of the People (Conduct of Election Election Petitions) Rules, 1951. In this code of rules, by Rule 2(6), it was expressly provided that the provisions of the General Clauses Act would apply. This express provision was required since the General Clauses Act would not normally be applicable to Rules framed under the Central Act. By Act No. 27 of 1956, a prescribed period for presentation of petition was provided under Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 instead of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arnail Singh and Ors. AIR 1957 SC 271; Hukumdev Narain Yadav vs. Lalit Narain Mishra, AIR 1974 SC 480; Simhadri Satya Narayana Rao vs. M. Budda Prasad and Ors.1994 Supp. (1) SCC 449.) So there cannot be any dispute to the proposition that Section 9 of the General Clauses Act would apply in computing the period of limitation under Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951. However, the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant in this case is that even if it is held that Section 9 has an application to a petition filed under Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951, it could be applied only in appropriate cases and is not to be applied universally. The contention of the appellant is that in view of the specific language employed in Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the inclusion or the exclusion of the day named may be intended. As a general rule, however, the effect of defining a period in such a manner is to exclude the first day and to include the last day." Section 9 says that in any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of the General Clauses Act, 1897, 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 the last in a series of days or any period of time, to use the word "to". The principle is that when a period is delimited by statute or rule, which has both a beginning and an end and the word "from" is used indicating the beginning, the opening day is to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that no elector or candidate shall file election petition before the date of election of the returned candidate and if there are more than one returned candidates at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates. The learned senior Counsel for the appellant contended that if the date of election of the candidate is excluded from computing the period of limitation of 45 days, the period of limitation would be extended by one day and, therefore, it is against the mandate of the statute. It was also contended that the filing of the application on the date of election of the returned candidate cannot be considered as a valid presentation of petition as envisaged in the section. We do not think that any su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
