TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition on 1.7.1996 at 3.00 P.M. in the Registry of the High Court of Punjab Haryana. The election petition was resisted and a preliminary objection was raised by respondent No. I to the effect that the election petition had not been filed within the period of 45 days as prescribed by Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act. 1951 (hereinafter the Act ) and was as such liable to be dismissed. The learned Election Judge on the basis of the preliminary objection, raised the following issue:- Whether the election petition has been filed within the period of limitation? Vide judgment dated 16th July, 1997, the issue was decided against the election petitioner and consequently the election petition was dismissed. In hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for the purpose of hearing an election petition, therefore Section 10 of the General Clauses Act was not attracted. Reliance in support of the submission was placed on the judgment of this Court in Satbir v. Smt. Parsanni Devi others, 1987 (73) Election Law Reports 201, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court had considered a Notification issued by the Punjab Haryana High Court on 20th November, 1981, in almost identical terms and held that since for the purpose of hearing of election petitions and filing of other matters under the Representation of the People Act, the Notification had provided an except :. benefit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act was not available to an election petitioner to file the election petition on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disputes is a complete code and a special law. The scheme of the special law shows that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Indian Limitation Act do not apply. If an election petition is not filed within the prescribed period of fortv-five days. Section 86(1) of the Act. which provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117. is straightaway attracted. The next question, however, which arises for consideration is whether Section 10 of the General Clauses Act. 1897 can apply in a case where the prescribed period of limitation expires during the vacations of the High Court? Section 10 of the General Clauses Act reads : S.I 0- Comput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by issuance of a Notification; which contains all matters connected therewith. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had. as in the previous years, issued a Notification on 27.11.1995. settling the summer vacations and providing therein the manner in which the High Court would function during the summer vacations. Whether the benefit of Section 10 of the Genera Clauses Act can be availed of to save the period of limitation in the present case would therefore, depend upon the terms of the Notification issued by the Punjab Haryana High Court on 27.11.1995. That Notification inter alia provides : It is hereby notified for general information that the Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh will be closed for Civil business except for hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the way of the appellant to present the election petition during the summer vacations. The judgments in Hari Shanker Tripathi v. Shiv Harsh and others and Simhadri Satya Narayana Rao v. M, Budda Prasad and others(supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant are clearly distinguishable. In the notifications issued in those cases by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Andhra Pradesh High Court, respectively, the entire period of summer vacation was declared as closed holidays in the case of the High Court of Allahabad, and for the entire period of Sankranthi vacation, the Andhra Pradesh High Court was also to remain closed. Unlike the notification of Punjab Haryana High Court dated 27.11.1995. in none of the Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f election petitiotts etc. during the period of summer vacations. We are not impressed by the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the serious charges which had been levelled against the returned candidate in the election petition, the same ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of limitation, as the purity of election process is required to be maintained. There is no quarrel with the proposition that it is the duty of the Courts to maintain the purity of election promess but at the same time there is no gainsaying that the law of limitation may harshly effect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its vigour when the statute so prescribes. The Courts cannot extend the period of limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
