MOHD. ALI versus AZAD MOHD.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 199 · Decided: 01-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, S. RAJENDRA BABU, R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MOHD. ALI 
v. 
AZAD MOHD. 
SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND 
R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: 
A 
B 
S.81 (1)-Election-Election Petition-Limitation for filing-Election C 
petition filed in Punjab' and Haryana High Court on reopening of summer 
vacations-Period of limitation expired during summer vacation-Notification 
of High Court dated 27.11.1995 mentioning that for purpose of hearing 
election petitions the Court was not "closed" during the summer vacations-
Held, election petition was barred by time because of the exception contained D 
in the Notification itself-General Clauses Act, 1897-S.10-High Court 
Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954-8.23-A-Limitation Act, 1963-
S.5. 
Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal & Ors., Suppl. (2) SCR 174, relied 
on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 445 of 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.97 of the Punjab and Haryana 
E 
High Court in E.P. No. 24of1996. 
p 
B.S. Malik, Altaf Hussain and Dr. K.S. Chauhan for the Appellant. 
J.S. Attri and S. Khan for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The election petition filed by the appellant challenging the election of 
the respondent was dismissed by the learned Election Judge of the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana on the preliminary issue of limitation without 
trial on 4th July, 1997. The order of the High Court has been put in issue 
before us through this appeal. 
199 
G 
H 
200 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The facts are not in dispute. The period of 45 days prescribed for filing 
an election petition expired during the period of summer vacations of the High 
Court i.e., June 1, 1996 to June 30, 1996 (both days inclusive). The election 
petition was admittedly filed on the re-opening day of the High Court after 
the summer vacations on July 1, 1996. The learned Election Judge considered 
the effect of Notification dated .27th of November, 1995 issued by the High 
B Court and held that the election petition filed on the re-opening day of the 
High Court was barred by time because for the purpose of hearing election 
petitions etc., the court was not "closed" during the summer vacations~ 
In Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8343/ 
C 97 decided on September l, 1999, this Court has considered the effect of the 
very same Notification dated 27th November, 1995 on, the filing of an election 
petition on the re-opening day of tlie High Court after summer vacations, 
when the prescribed period of limitation expired, during the summer vacations. 
After ~king note of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 
as well as Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, this _Court has come 
D to the conclusion that the election petition, was barred by time, because of~
the exception contained in the Notification itself. The opinion expressed in the 
said case applies to this case with full force. We adopt the reasoning given 
by the Bench in Lachhman Das Arora 's case (supra) to this case also. 
E 
Faced with this situation, Mr. B.S. Malik, learned counsel appearing for 
the petitioner submitted that another Notification had been issued by the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on 27th May,. 1996 and 
since the later Notification did not contain any exception, the benefit of 
Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, would be available to an election 
petitioner for filing the election petition on the re-opening day of the High 
F Court after summer vacations. The Notification dated 27th May, 1996 on 
which reliance is placed reads thus: 
G 
"No. 207/Genl. XVII. 3. - It is notified for general information that High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh shall observe summer 
vacations from 1st June to 30th June, 1996 (both days inclusive) and 
following timings shall.be observed during the period of vacation i.e., 
1st June, 1996 to 30th June, 1996. 
Court timings: 
Office timings: 
10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. with lunch break from 1.00 
p.m. to 1.45 p.m. 
10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. With lunch break from 1.30 
'\-
r_ 
" 
l 
MOHD. ALI v. AZAD MOHD. 
p.m. to 2.00 p.m. 
By order of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice and Judges 
(Sd) 
Assistant Registrar (General) 
For Registrar" 
201 
A 
B 
In our opinion, reliance on this Notification to save the period of 
limitation is misplaced. The Notification of 27th May, 1996 (supra) does not 
in any manner supersede the Notif
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.