DANDA RAJESHWARI versus BODAVULA HANUMAYAMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 30-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DANDA RAJESHWARI 
A 
v. 
BODAVULA HANUMAYAMMA AND ORS. 
JULY 30, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Election Law: 
A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunal) in respect of Gram 
Panclwyats, Manda/ Pwishads and Zilla Pwishads Rules, 1995: 
C 
Rule I-Election of Swpanch-Declaration of result of the Elec-
tion-Election petition-Limitation-W1it petition filed in High Cozut chal-
lenging the election of the retumed ca11didate-High Cozut dec/i11ed to go into 
the disputed questio11s of fact and obse1ved that petitio11ers may file election 
petitio11 within three weeks of the disposal of the writ petitio11 and if such D 
electio11 petition is filed, Electio11 T1ibu11al shall e11te1tain the same without 
going into the questio11 of limitatio11-He/d, High Cowt lightly gave the 
directions. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
A1tic/e 226-Wiit petitio11 challenging electio11 of Sarpanch--High Court 
decli11ed to i11vestigate into the disputed questions of facts a11d directed that 
it would be open to the petitionen to file an e/ectio11 petition as provided by 
Rule 3 of the A.P. Panchayats Raj Electio11 T1ibz111al, in respect of Gram 
Panclzayats, Ma11dal Parishads and Zilla Pwishads Rules, 1995, and if such 
election petition is filed the Election T1ibwzal would decide the same on 
mC1its without going into the questio11 of limitation. Held, High Court was 
1ight in giving the directions. 
Union of l11dia & Anr. v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd., (1996) 4 
SCALE 317, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 1368 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3.96 of the Andhra Pradesh 
E 
F 
G 
High Court in W.P. No. 13557 of 1995. 
H 
169 
170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
L.N. Rao and S. Uday Kumar Sagar for the Petitioner. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The only question raised in this case is : whether the direction issued 
by the High Court in the impugned order to file the Election Petition within 
three weeks from the date of the disposal of the writ petition and after 
filing of the petition to dispose of the same, without going into the question 
of limitation is valid in law ? The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the 
impugned order dated June 26, 1995 in Writ Petition No. 11106 of 1995 
and batch observed as follows : 
"We are not inclined to go into the questions raised in this Writ 
Petition. The appropriate form is the Election Tribunal. It is open 
to the petitioners to ftle an election petition within three weeks 
from today and if such an petition is filed, the same shall be 
entertained by the Election Tribunal without going into question 
of limitation and disposed it of in accordance with law as ex-
peditiously as possible, in any event not later than four months 
from the date of filing of the Petition. No costs. 
Shri B. Nageshwara Rao, counsel for the petitioner placing reliance 
on Rule 3 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunal) in respect of 
Gram Panchayats and Manda! Parishads and Zila Parishad Rules, 1995 
(for short, the 'Rule') contended that the rules contemplate filing of an 
Election Petition within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result 
of the election. It reads as under : 
"3(1) The election petition shall be presented within thirty days 
from the date of the declaration of result of the election. 
Explanation : If the Court of the Subordinate Judge or the 
District Munsiff, as the case may be or the Officer of the Office 
of the Govern1nent who i~ the Election Tribunal is closed on the 
last day of the thirty days aforesaid, the petition may be presented 
to be Election Tribunal on the next day afterwards on which such 
Court or Tribunal is open. 
(ii) The petition shall contain a statement in concise from, the 
material facts on which the petitioner relies and the particulars of 
any corrupt practices which he alleges and shall, where necessary, 
' 
DANDARAJESHWARI v. BODAVULAHANUMAYAMMA 
171 
he alleges and shall, where necessary, be divided into paragraphs A 
numbered consecutively. It shall be signed by the petitioner and 
verified in the manner prescribed for the verification of pleadings 
in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." 
The remedy is statutory remedy and limitation is one of the condi-
tions to entertain election petition. By judicial order the limitation cannot 
be nullified. Jn support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment of this 
Court in Union of Indi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.