TMI Blog1956 (12) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lared void on the ground that We and his agents had committed various corrupt and illegal practices, of which particulars were given. The appellant filed a written statement denying these allegations. He therein raised the further contention that the election petition had not been presented within the time limited by law, and was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Rule 119, which prescribes the period within which election petitions have to be filed, runs, so far as it is material, as follows: 119. Time within which an election petition shall be presented :--An election petition calling in question an election may,- (a) in the case where such petition is against a returned candidate, be presented under section 81 at any time after the date of publication of the name, of such candidate under section 67 but not later than fourteen days from the date of publication of the notice in the Official Gazette under rule 113 that the return of election expenses of such candidate and the declaration made in respect thereof have been lodged with the Returning Officer-, The last date for filing the petition, according to this Rule, was May 16, 1954, but that happened to be a Sunday a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mencement of this Act, any act or 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. The contention of Mr. Solicitor-General on behalf of the appellant is that this section can apply on its own terms only when the act in question is to be done within a prescribed period , that under Rule 119(a) the petition has to be filed not later than fourteen days, that the two expressions do not mean the same thing, the words of the Rule being more peremptory, and that accordingly s. 10 of the General Clauses Act cannot be invoked in aid of a petition presented under Rule 119, later than fourteen days. In support of this contention, he invites our attention to some of the Rules in which the expression the time within which is used, as for example, Rule 123, and he argues that when a statute uses two different expressions, they must be construed as used in two differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin Rule 119. We are also unable to read in the proviso to s. 37 of the Act an intention generally to exclude the operation of s. 10 of the General Clauses Act in the construction of the Rules, as that will be against the plain language of Rule 2 (6). It should be noted that proviso applies only to s. 30 (c) of the Act, and it is possible that the Legislature might have considered it doubtful whether s. 30 (c) would, having regard to its terms, fall within s. 10 of the General Clauses Act and enacted the province abundant cauterize. The operation of such a beneficent enactment as a. 10 of the General Clauses Act is not, in our opinion, to be cut down on such unsubstantial grounds as have been urged before us. We are accordingly of opinion that the petition which the respondent filed on May 18, 1954, is entitled to the protection afforded by that section and is in time. We should add that the appellant also raised the contention that if we agreed with him that the election petition was not presented in time, we should hold that the order of the Election Commission admitting the petition was not one of condonation within the proviso to s. 85, because that proceeded on the footing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn of election expenses made by the appellant was false in that it did not include anything on account of the services of the 25 employees, the Tribunal says: We have held under Issue No. 3 that respondent No. I did utilise the services of 25 of his employees for furthering his election prospects. Now there is no evidence on the record to show that these employees were engaged specifically for the purposes of election. All of them had been in the service of respondent No. I for a long time before the election in normal course. Therefore, there is no reason why the emoluments paid should be charged to the election account. However, if any additional allowances were paid to these persons that would certainly be chargeable to the election account. But there is no evidence on the record to show that any such allowance was paid. Now, the question is whether on these facts there is a contravention of Rule 118. The contention of Mr. Solicitor- General for the appellant is that the Rule would apply only if 'the employment of the persons was specifically for work in connection with the election and such employment was for payment. In other words, according to him it is only em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is neither an employment in connection with the election, nor a payment on account of such employment. Indeed, the salary paid to the members would not even be election expenses liable to be included in the return. But if, in the above case, the members are paid extra for their work, such extra payment will have to be included in the return of election expenses, though it 'may be that Rule 118 itself might have no application for the reason that there is no employment for election and the payment is not in respect of such employment. If, however, the members of the staff are switched off from their normal work and turned on to election work so that it could be said that work has been assigned to them in supersession of their normal work, then the salary paid to them could rightly be regarded as payment for work in connection with election within Rule 118. That being our view on the construction of Rule 118, we shall now proceed to consider what the position is, on the authorities cited before us. In the Hartlepools Case the question arose with reference to one Butler who was the general secretary of Mr. Furness, the returned candidate, and certain clerks in a company i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k in this passage suggest that the employees had been taken out of their original work. As there is no discussion of the present question, the authority of this decision is, in any event, little. In Farrukhabad Case, this passage,, as also the observations of Phillimore, J., we're quoted, and in accordance therewith, it was held that the salaries of Tilakdhari Singh, Kundan Singh and Drigpal Singh for the period they worked in connection with the election of the respondent Nol should have been shown in the return It was found in that case that Tilakdhari Singh worked exclusively for 30 days in connections with the election and Kundan Singh and Drigpal Singh would appear to have similarly devoted themselves to election work for certain periods. None of these cases has considered what would amount to employment in connection with election, when the persons had been previously employed on other work; and they throw no light on the present question. The position may thus be summed up : (1)For Rule 118 to apply, two conditions must be satisfied, viz., there should have been an employment by the candidate of a person in connection with, an election, and such employment should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
