LexHARI SHANKER TRIPATHI versus SHIV HARSH & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D F G H 3 08 HARI SHANKER TRIPATHI v. SHIV HARSH & OTHERS February 3, 1976 [P. K. GOSWAMI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] Represellfation of tile People Act (43 of 1951), ss. 2(1)(/zJ, 39(1)(a), 81(1), 87(1) and 1he Rules /rained by the Aflahabad High Court under Act, rr. 3 and 4-Allalzabad High Court Rules, 1952, rr. 4 and IO-Period of lin1itation under s. 81 ( 1) for election petition expiring during sumnier vacation-Filing of petition on re-opening day-If barred-General Clauses Act (10 of 1897), s. IO-Applicability. The respondent was declared elected on April 30, 1974, in the election to the State Legislative Council. The period of limitation of 45 days, prescribed bys. 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for filing an election petition, expired on June 14, 1974, when the High Court was closed for the summer vacation. The appellant, therefore, filed the election petition on July 8, 1974, the re-opening day, challenging the respondent's election. The High Court dismissed the petition as having been filed out of time. Allowing the appeal to this Court and remitting the matter to the High Court for disposal on merits. HELD : The Hi,gh Court had issued' a notification that the entire period of the si1mmer vacation from ~lay 25, to July 7, 1974 was a closed holiday, As the period of limitation expired during the summer vacation, which was a closed holiday, the Registrar of the High Court \Vas not competent to entertain the election petition. nor could the appellant have presented the election petition legally to the Registrar during such period; and so. it is a case to which s. 10, General Clauses Act, 1897, applies and the appellant was justified in filing the petition on the re-opening day. [312C-D; 3130-E; 318A-B] ( 1) Und.er r. 3 of the Rules framed by the High Court under the Repre- sentation of the People Act, every election petition shall be presented to the Registrar; and r.. 4 lays down that after the office report is complete, the Registrar shall place the petition forthwith before the Chief Justice for reference to the concerned Bench. But, from these rules it could not be held that there was no impediment in the way of the appellant in filing the election petition before the Registrar as the office of the High Court was open and the Registrar was available, even though the Court was closed. The presentation before the Registrar, required by r. 3, must be a legal presentation and not a mere physical presentation. If on a day the office is open and only Judges~ do not sit, it v,1ould undoubtedly be a working day of the Court and the election petition could be presented to the Registrar or other officer. But, if the Court was observing a closed holiday, then the Court is not open even though .the office may remain open for conducting ministerial or administrative work. Rules 3 artl 4 refer to a situation where the Court is open, because, the Registrar has to take the legal steps of placing the petition immediately before the Chief Justice for reference to the Bench concerned and the assignment of a Judge. This could not be done when the Court was observing a closed holiday. [314C-GJ Huku111dev Narain Yada1• v. Lalit Narain Mi.l'lira, [1974] 3 S.C.R. 31, explained. Krishna Dhan Mullick v. U1nratul Zohra Begam, I.L.R. [1949] All. 433, :1pproved. (2) (a) Further, r. 10 of the High Court Rules. which is the only provision which empowers vacation Judges to -hear matters, has a very limited scope and does not empov.·er the Registrar to entertain or to receive an e1ection petitio!1. Under the rule, normally, only criminal work shall continue to be dealt \\'Ith during vacation, and it is only when other matters require immediate attention I H. s. TRIPATH! v. SHIV HARSH (Fazal Ali, !.) 30 9 that the vacation Judges have jurisdiction to entertain them. Election petitions A do not come under these two categories, so as to be taken up when the Court is observing a closed holiday. [315E, H-316B] (b) The mere fact that a practice has grown up of the Registrar or Deputy Registrars or other officers receiving: a number of applications, which was not strfctly justified by the Rules, would not have the effect of converting v.'hat is legally a closed holiday into a working day. [316B-C] ( c) Rule 4 of the High Court Rules-which pro\rides that 'where any particular number of days is prescribed by these Rules, the same shall
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.