TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Congress candidate who has been declared elected in the election held on 10.05.2008. Respondent No.3 is the Observer appointed by the Election Commission of India. 3) According to the appellants, election was held on 10.05.2008 and counting took place on 25.05.2008. Initially, the Media Officer appointed by the Election Commission announced appellant No.1 as the successful candidate and declared him elected. When the election agents and counting agents of appellant No.1 had left the place of counting, an application for re-counting was submitted by the second respondent and thereafter, second respondent was declared elected. The appellants filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Act on various grounds pointing out large-scale irregularities and illegalities committed by respondent-authorities in the voting and the illegalities of allowing the recounting after announcing the declaration of appellant No.1 as elected. 4) On 06.07.2008, the first appellant, through his advocate, Shri Shiva Reddy presented the election petition before the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Karnataka. The Registry of the High Court put up an office objection that as the appellants were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... election or not. (2) Omitted by Act 47 of 1966 with effect from 14.12.1966. (3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. Sub-section (1) makes it clear that any challenge or dispute relating to an election may be presented in the form of an election petition highlighting the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Sections 100 and 101. It further mandates that the election petition is to be filed only before the High Court having jurisdiction either by any candidate or any elector within the prescribed time. As per sub-section (1), election petition is to be filed within 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate. 8) Sub-section (1) also makes it clear that the election can be challenged not only by any candidate of such election but also even an elector who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates irrespective of the fact that whether he has voted at such election or not. Sub-section (3) mandates that depending on the number ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v) it must be presented in the High Court; and (v) it must be presented within 45 days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates. 12) Therefore, all these five requirements are extremely specific and clear. This inference is further strengthened by Section 86(1) which provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 . 13) This Court, on previous occasions, had the chance to interpret Section 81(1). It must be noted that the Representation of the People Act is a special statute, and a self-contained regime. In K. Venkateswara Rao and Anr. vs. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi and Ors., (1969) 1 SCR 679, a question arose whether 45 days period provided under Section 81(1) could be condoned through the application of the Limitation Act? After examining the relevant provisions of the Act, this Court held: ...the Limitation Act cannot apply to proceedings like an election petition inasmuch as the Representation of the People Act is a complete and sel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of Section 81(1) must be understood. In Sheo Sadan Singh vs. Mohan Lal Gautam, 1969 (1) SCC 408, in paragraph 4, this court held that: The High Court has found as a fact that the election petition was presented to the registry by an advocate's clerk in the immediate presence of the petitioner. Therefore, in substance though not in form, it was presented by the petitioner himself. Hence the requirement of the law was fully satisfied. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even though the form of the provision was not followed, i.e. the petition was not presented by the petitioner personally , in substance , it was followed. It is to be noted that in Sadan Singh's case, it is not in dispute that the petition was presented to the Registry in the immediate presence of the petitioner. In other words, the officer authorized by the High Court had an opportunity to verify him but in the case on hand, admittedly, it was presented only by the advocate and the petitioners were not present before the Registrar (Judicial). In view of the same, the said decision is not helpful to the appellant's case. This is because the petitioner therein had, in su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
