RAJ KUMAR YADAV versus SAMIR KUMAR MAHASETH AND ORS

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 670 · Decided: 11-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
RAJ KUMAR YADAV 
v. 
SAMIR KUMAR MAHASETH AND ORS .. 1~., 
MARCH 11, 2005 
'• L 
' 
J 
. I 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND.PK. 
BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Election laws : 
Representation of the People Act, J95J-Section 8J-Patna High Court 
Rules-Rules 6 and 7-Limitation for presenting election petition-Election 
petition presented at 4.25 pm on the last date of limitation, JO minutes after 
the Judge had risen from open court but still available in chambers within the 
court premises-Judge declined to receive the petition-He also declined to 
D direct any official of the Registry to receive the same-Petition was presented 
on the next day when the Judge was sitting in open court-Validity of such 
presentation-Held: The presentation would be deemed to be within limitation 
and valid-Constitution of India, J950-Article 225. 
Patna High Court Rules-Rules 6 and 7-Receipt of election petition -
E Suggestion by Court for clarification or umendment in the Patna High Court 
Rules so that the ministerial act of receiving the election petition be made by 
the administrative staff of High Court. 
F 
Words and Phrases-"Day"-Meaning of-Jn context to Section 8J of 
the Representation of the People Act, J 9 5 J. 
An Election petition was presented before the designated Election Judge 
of Patna High Court on 27-8-2003, the last date of limitation, at 4.25 p.m., 10 
minutes after the Judge had risen from the open court but was still available 
in chambers within the court premises. The Election Judge declined to accept 
the petition beyond court hours, he being of the view that under the Patna 
G High Court Rules the election petition could be filed only in the open court; 
nor did he make any other order such as directing any official of the Registry 
to receive the same. Election petitioner presented the Election Petition on the 
next day when the designated Election Judge was available and sitting in the 
H 
670 
R.K. Y ADA V v. S.K. MAHASETH 
671 
open court. The Election Petition was subsequently dismissed as barred by A 
limitation. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The designated Election Judge of the High Court has erred 
in holding the presentation to be barred by limitation. The Election Petition B 
would be deemed to be within limitation. The High Court shall proceed to 
deal with the petition in accordance with law. (678-G, 679-A] 
2. The limitation provided by Section 81 of the Representation of the 
People Act expires on 45th day from the date of election. The word 'day' is 
not defined in the Act It shall have to be assigned its ordinary meaning as C 
understood in law. The word 'day' as per English calendar begins at midnight 
and covers a period of 24 hours thereafter, in the absence of there being 
anything to the contrary in the context. Thus, in the instant case, the election 
petition could have been presented upto the midnight falling between 27th 
and 28th of August, 2003. [675-D-E] 
D 
Ramkrishan Onkarmal Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1994) Born 
87 and The Municipal Council ofCuddalore v. S. Subrahmanya Aiyar, 16 MLJ 
101, approved. 
The Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha Aiyar, pp. 470, 471, referred to. 
E 
3. The statutory period of limitation as provided by the Representation 
of the People Act cannot be taken away by the Rules framed by the High 
Court governing its procedure. The rules framed in exercise of the power 
conferred by Article 225 of the Constitution relate to procedural matters and 
cannot make nor curtail any substantive law. [675-F] 
F 
Prabhu Narayan v. A.K Srivastava, [1979) 3 SCC 788, relied on. 
S.A. Ganny v. l.M Russell, (1930) ILR 8 Rangoon 380, referred to. 
4. The High Court has not correctly interpreted Rules 6 and 7 of the G 
Patna High Court Rules. The rules are not meticulously well-drafted rules 
taking care of myriad situations which may arise. They appear to be more in 
the nature of directions aiming at convenient and smooth functioning of the 
High Court dealing with election petitions as also streamlining the procedure 
and practice of presentation. The designated Election Judge can always issue 
H 
672 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005) 2 S.C.R. 
A such orders as it may deem fit in the matter of presentation of the election 
petition. If the court is open, it is desirable that a formal presentation of the 
election petition is made to the Judge while sitting in open court. As the Judge 
himself is not expected to scrutinize 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.