CHANDRA KISHORE JHA versus MAHAVIR PRASAD AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 754 · Decided: 21-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHANDRA KISHORE JHA 
v. 
MAHAVIR PRASAD AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 2 I , I 999 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND 
R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
Patna High Court Rules, 1916-Rule 6 a/Chapter XXI-E, Rules 7,9,13 
of Chapter fl part /, Rule 24 of Chapter XXl-E-Election petitioil-Sought 
C to be filed on the last day of prescribed period-Courts not functioning after 
3.15 P.M after an obituary Reference-Petition handed over to Bench Clerk 
of the Courf-Presented before the open court on very next day-Whether 
barred by limitation-Held, under the Rules an election petition can be 
presented only before a designated Judge in open Court or a Bench hearing 
D civil applications and motions-Presentation before the Bench clerk or 
Registrar not properly made-However by virtue of Sec. JO of General Clauses 
Act, petition within the period of limitation-Genera/ Clauses Act, 1897, Sec. 
JO-Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
E 
Maxims: 
"Jmpossibilium nu/la obligatio est"-Meaning and applicability of 
In the elections to the Bihar Legislative Assembly respondent no. 1 
was declared elected on 1.4.1995. Appellant filed an election petition 
challenging the election of respondent no. 1 in open Court on 17.5.1995. The 
p period of 45 days within which an election petition could be filed before a 
Designated Judge in open court or before a Bench hearing civil application 
and motions expired on 16.5.1995. However, on 16.5.1995, after an Obituary 
Reference, neither the Designated Judge nor the Bench was available after 
3.15 P.M. Appellant therefore, handed over the petition to the Bench Clerk. 
On the very next day it was presented before the Designed Judge in open 
G court. The Designated judge dismissed the petition as barred by limitation 
holding that the presentation before the Bench Clerk on 16.5.1995 was not 
in conformity with the Patna High Court Rules, 1916 and instead it ought 
to have been presented to the Registrar. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
754 
._. ... 
-
-
_,_ 
-· 
C.K. JI-IA ,-.MAHAVIR PRASAD 
755 
HELO: I.I. An election petition under Rule 6 of Chapter XXl-E of the A 
Patna High Court Rules, 1916 can be made only before the Designated 
Election Judge in open court and on his non-availability, before the Bench 
hearing civil applications and motions. Thus, presentation of the election 
petition to the Bench Clerk was not proper presentation under the Rules. 
[761-D-Fl B 
1.2. The Designated Election Judge was not justified in holding that in 
view of Rule 24 of Chapter XXl-E read with Rule 13(iii) of Chapter II Part 
I, the election petition ought to have been presented to the Registrar. Proper 
presentation of an election petition in the High Court can only be made in 
the manner prescribed by Rule 6 of Chapter XXI-E No other mode of C 
presentation of an election petition is envisaged under the Act or the Rules 
made thereunder. Therefore, an election petition could, under no 
circumstances be presented to the Registrar to save the period of limitation. 
It is a well settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to 
be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and 
in no other manner. An election petition being a purely statutory remedy, D 
nothing is to be read into the Rules-Nothing is to be presumed-Which is 
not provided for in the Rules. (761-B; 762-A-B; 761-G-H) 
' 
Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, 63 Indian Appeals 372 =AIR, (1936) 
PC 253; Rao Shri Bahadur Singh & Anr. v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, [1954] 
SCR 1098 =AIR, (1954) SC 322 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara E 
Singh & Ors., AIR, (1964) SC 358 = (1964) 1 SCWR 57, relied on. 
2.1. Law does ~ot expect a party to do the impossible imposebilum nu/la 
obligatio est. In the instant case, the election petition under the Rule could 
only have been presented in the open Court upto 16.5.1995 till 4.15 P.M. 
either before the Designated Judge or the Bench hearing civil applications F 
and motions to save the period of limitation. Ho~ever, neither the Designated 
Election Judge nor the Bench was available on 16.5.1995 after 3.15 P.M. 
after the Obituary Reference. It was, therefore, not possible for the appellant 
to have presented the election petition on that date which was the last day 
of the prescribed period of limitation. [762-E-C-DI 
G 
2.2. The Designated Election Judge was not justified in denying the 
benefit of Sec. 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and dismiss
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.