TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led. While referring to the e-filing Rules applicable to the present case, it is seen that there is nothing in the said Rules which could construe that the proceedings which have been filed by Petitioners on 20.11.2023 would debar them from maintaining the Election Petition. It is clear that the Petition is filed online and electronically by them before the end of the limitation period generating the remark Document not serial . This Court has held that to take an extreme view that if there is deficiency in filing it would debar the party from maintaining the action would tantamount to patent absurdity and it would result in gross injustice prejudicially affecting the legitimate right of persons to a legal remedy (access to justice). It is trite that parties will undoubtedly have an opportunity to remove the deficiencies, if any, which may prevail at the time of filing the proceedings, after the proceedings are filed. This Court has observed that procedural compliances can never defeat the substantive remedy and right to pursue substantive challenge and proceedings when filed within the limitation period - In the present case the procedural deficiency noted as Document not serial a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an Election Petition filed to challenge result of an Election (public). 3. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1273 of 2024 - Rajesh Chandrakant Shingade has filed the Election Petition. Facts in the Election Petition as also other relevant dates are not in dispute. Election result was declared on 06.11.2023. Respondent No. 5 represented by Mr. Gavnekar was declared elected from Ward No. 3 of the Gram Panchayat of Mauje Jambulpada Varhad, Taluka Sudhagad, District Raigad in the election. Petitioner being unsuccessful challenged the election of Respondent No. 5 by filing Election Petition. Under the statute, such Election Petition is required to be filed within 15 days from the date of declaration of results of election. That prescribed period of limitation would end on 21.11.2023. 4. Petitioner has come with the case that on 20.11.2023, Petitioner filed Election Petition through his Advocate before the Civil Judge Junior Division Pali, District Raigad through e-filing i.e. online. Petitioner got e-filing No. C2023000012 which is supported by document at page No. 201 of the Petition. According to Petitioner, remark which appeared pursuant to e-filing action undertaken by Petitioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... li to file the physical copy of Election Petition so as to ensure that there is no transgression of the limitation period which was supposed to end on the following day i.e. on 21.11.2023. 5.1. In her submissions, she would submit that after the declaration of election result on 06.11.2023, Election Petition was filed by Petitioners on 20.11.2023 online and thereafter the Petitioners Advocate approached the Bench Clerk in Pali Court, namely Pradip Mhatre for filing the Election Petition physically. She would submit the fact that the Petition was filed online is evidenced from the online acknowledgment placed on record at page No.201 of the Writ Petition. The first entry on the said document notes that Rajesh Chandrakant Shingade (Petitioner) has filed the Election Petition against Sandesh Dnaneshwar Londhe and the e-filing number allocated thereunder namely AMH20210052373C202300016 evidences such filing. She would submit that on that date, there was a network failure due to which some technical difficulty had arisen. The remark which is mentioned after e-filing of the Election Petition namely Document not serial could not be rectified online on that date. Hence she would submit tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction Petition online on 20.11.2023 and this has to be construed as having filed the Election Petition within limitation. She would draw my attention to paragraph No. 8 of the decision in the case of Trafigura Global Services Pvt. Ltd. (1st supra) and would contend that the Division Bench of this Court has taken a categorical view that even assuming that the Petitioner had subsequently submitted the relevant documents, once the Writ Petition has been filed by online method and there is evidence of it being filed online, it could not have been held that the Petitioner s Application (filing) was barred by limitation due to any defect and deficiency, which was a curable defect and hence she would submit that filing of the Election Petition online on 20.11.2023 has to be held within the prescribed period of limitation only. 5.6. Next she would submit that in the decision of NBK Films LLP (2nd supra) the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: Smt. Bharati Dangre, J) has returned a finding that once the action is generated on the date of filing which is electronically received by the Registry, it has to be considered, rather it shall be considered as the date of e-filing. She would s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of filing is the date of the stamp number of the Petition always. 5.10. In view of the above, she would submit that the electronic filing number generated in both cases which is at page No. 201 of the Writ Petition No. 1273 of 2024 and which is at page No. 224 of Writ Petition No. 1360 of 2024, within the period of limitation as on 20.11.2023 as prescribed deserves to be accepted and both the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. Patil, learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 State and its functionaries. He would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the submissions advanced by the Petitioners and Respondent No. 5, this Court after considering the legal position and the Rules be pleased to pass an appropriate decision in the Writ Petitions. 7. PER CONTRA, Mr. Gavnekar, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 5 would succinctly submit that in the present case e-filing has been unsuccessfully done by electronic filing on 20.11.2023 and therefore the Application dated 23.11.2023 was filed by Petitioner for taking the Petition on record. Hence according to him, this action of physically filing the Application after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of physically filing the Election Petition on 23.11.2023 clearly waived his right of e-filing the Petition and the physical filing was admittedly beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Hence it will have to be construed that the said Election Petition is not filed within limitation and the impugned order deserved to be sustained. 7.2. Besides the above factual submissions, Mr. Gavnekar has made legal submissions stating that once the document is filed and a stamp number and login ID number is generated, then the document becomes the property of the Court. He would draw my attention to Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and would contend that the key words used in the said Section are the words . instituted .. and . shall be dismissed ... in that Section. 7.3. He would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Election Petition has to be construed as having been filed, rather instituted in the Designated Court only on 23.11.2023 when the Election Petition was physically filed by the Petitioner and therefore the same having not been filed before the expiry of the limitation period on 21.11.2023, the Election Petition is time barred and has to be th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Applications filed by the Petitioners. 10. It is an admitted position and both the learned Advocates are ad idem that the Rules framed by the State Government, namely E-Filing Rules of the High Court of Bombay 2022 would apply for the purpose of e-filing of the Petitions in the learned Trial Court in the present case. 11. The said Rules are relevant and will have to be read in its entirety. They cannot be read piecemeal which is attempted to have been the position advocated by Respondent No. 5 by restricting reading and applicability of Rule 14.2 and 14.3 only. In my opinion, the definition of Electronic Filing (e-filing) under Rule 2.7 is most relevant and reads thus:- 2.7. Electronic Filing (e-filing): means e-filing as prescribed through the Internet (at the web portal of the Court) and through the internet / intranet at Designated Counters, unless the context requires otherwise. 12. From the above definition, it is clear that all that is contemplated is e-filing as prescribed through the internet (at the web portal of the Court) and through the internet / intranet at the designated counters. In the present cases, this specific action has been undertaken and complied with by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund of the tax which was erroneously deposited with the returns filed under the first (cancelled) registration number. He submits that returns as filed under the old registration were void ab initio and consequently, the amount deposited thereunder was of no legal consequence, so as to amount to be any tax either validly paid or collected. It is submitted that these facts were not taken into consideration by the authorities below, in passing the impugned orders. It is hence submitted that the said orders are contrary to law. Insofar as the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is concerned, the submission is that although the order records that the Appellant had filed the appeal Online on 8th August 2022, the appellate authority has not set out any reasons as to why such online filing of the appeal was not taken into consideration in deciding the issue of limitation. He submits that, although there was an error in submitting copies of some of the documents, that cannot make the filing of the appeal to be invalid and/or not within the limitation when according to him, the same was filed within the prescribed limitation as prescribed by Sections 107(1) and (4) of the CG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons, as noted by us above, so as to deny the refund claim of the Petitioner. Further, the appellate authority on a purely technical reason that the Petitioner s appeal was barred by limitation under Sections 107 (1) and (4) rejected the Petitioner s appeal. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had filed his appeal online on 18th August 2022, which was within the prescribed limitation i.e. within a period of four months from the impugned order dated 8th June 2022. Although, in paragraph 4.5 of its order, the appellate authority has recorded the said fact, however, merely on the ground that physical copies were not furnished and/ or on some deficiencies on documents to be uploaded being not complied by the Petitioner, the appellate authority taking a hyper-technical view of the matter, rejected the Petitioner s appeal, without examining such essential facts and without touching the merits of the Petitioner s case. Such approach of the appellate authority, in our opinion, was not only contrary to the record and illegal, but also not consistent with the provisions of Sections 107(1) and (4) of the CGST Act. 16. We may observe that, in such circumstances, any deficiency in filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cally by them before the end of the limitation period generating the remark Document not serial . This Court has held that to take an extreme view that if there is deficiency in filing it would debar the party from maintaining the action would tantamount to patent absurdity and it would result in gross injustice prejudicially affecting the legitimate right of persons to a legal remedy (access to justice). It is trite that parties will undoubtedly have an opportunity to remove the deficiencies, if any, which may prevail at the time of filing the proceedings, after the proceedings are filed. 19. This Court has observed that procedural compliances can never defeat the substantive remedy and right to pursue substantive challenge and proceedings when filed within the limitation period. In the present case the procedural deficiency noted as Document not serial after admittedly electronically filing and registration of the Election Petition online on 20.11.2023 cannot be held to be as the Petition being not filed within the limitation period. What is crucial is the fact of receiving the Petition in the record of the Registry, which infact has been accomplished. 20. The impugned orders dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
