LACHMAN DAS ARORA versus GANESHI LAL AND ORS

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 174 · Decided: 01-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
LACHMAN DAS ARORA 
GANESHI LAL AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 
[DR. A.S. ANAND C.J., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND 
R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: Sections 81(1) and 86(1). 
C 
Election-Limitation-Period of-Election petition-Filed on the 
reopening day of High Court after summer vacations after expiry of the 
prescribed period of limitation i.e., 45 days-But High Court notification 
clearly provided that election petition could be filed even during summer 
vacations-Held: If election petition is not filed within the prescribed period 
it will result in dismissal-Benefit of S.10 of the General Clauses Act not 
D available to save period of limitation as election petition was filed on the 
reopening clay of summer vacations during which the period of limitation 
had expired. 
General Clauses Act, 1897: 
E 
Section 10-EJection petition-Applicability of-Held Applicable to 
F 
election petitions also and, therefore, if court is closed, petition can be filed 
on the next day on which the court re-opens-However, applicability of S.10 
would depend upon the facts of each case. 
Limitation. Act, 1963: 
Section 5-Period of limitation-Extension of-Equity-Held: Law of 
limitation has to be applied with all its vigour when the statute so prescribes-
Court cannot extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds particularly 
in the matter of filing of election petition. 
G 
The respondent was declared elected to the State Legislative Assembly. 
The appellant, defeated candidate, filed a petition challenging the election of 
the respondent in the High Court on the reopening day after summer 
vacations. The respondent raised a preliminary objection to the effect that 
the election petition was not filed within the period of 45 days prescribed by 
H Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and, therefore, 
174 
---
LACHMAN DAS ARORA v. GANES HI LAL 
175 
the election petition was liable to be dismissed. 
The High Court, relying on a Notification issued by it which provided 
that the High Court was closed for civil business during the summer vacations 
except for hearing election petitions, dismissed the election petition on the 
preliminary issue of limitation without trial. Hence this appeal. 
A 
B 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that since the High Court 
was closed on account ofvacations, presentation ofan election petitioJ!'On the 
next day following the vacations, would render the election petition to have 
been filed during the prescribed period as provided under Section 10 of the 
General Clauses Act, 1897 and that in view of serious charges levelled C 
against the respondent the election petition should not have been dismissed 
on ground of limitation. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. No period of filing of an election petition is prescribed under D 
the Limitation Act, 1963. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 insofar 
as it relates to presentation and trial of election disputes is a complete code 
and a special law. The scheme of the special law shows that the provisions 
of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act do not apply. If an election petition 
is not filed within the prescribed period of forty-five days, Section 86(1) of E 
the Act, which provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition 
which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 117, is 
straightaway attracted. [178-G-H; 179-A] 
2. The proviso to Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 makes 
the provisions of Section 10 inapplicable to cases where the Limitation Act F · 
applies and since the Limitation Act does not apply to election petitions flied 
under the Act, Section 10 of the General Clauses Act in term would apply 
to the filing of election petitions also. According to Section 10 an act should 
be considered to have been done within the prescribed period, if it is done 
on the next day on which the Court or office is open. The applicability of G 
Section 10 would, however, depend upon the facts of each case and the 
manner in which the High Court transacts its business during the period 
ofvacations. (179-E-F] 
Satbir v. Smt. Parsanni Devi, (1987) 73, Election Law Report 201, 
followed. 
H 
176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 1 S.C.R 
A 
3. The benefit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act was not 
available to the election petitioner to save the period of limitation as 
undisputedly the election petition had been filed, on the reopening
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.