LexSIMHADRI SATYA NARAYANA RAO versus M. BUDDA PRASAD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~
SIMHADRI SATYA NARAYANA RAO
<
A
v.
M. BUDDA PRASAD AND ORS.
DECEMBER 21, 1990
[KULDIP SINGH AND M. FA1HIMA BEEVI, JJ.]
B
Election Law: Repr,esentation of the People Act, 1951. Section 81
and 86-Election petition-Filing on the re-opening day of the High
Court after vacation-Statutory period of 45 days over during the
vacation-Whether liable to be dismissed under section 86 of the Act?
Notification dated 29.12.1989 issued by the High Court notifying
c
the Sankranthi vacation-Its interpretation and scope-No distinction
can be made .betiveen the court and the office (Registry)-Manner and
extent of functioning during the vacation-Whether in the light of the
wording of the notification, the High Court remained closed between
2.1. I990 and I2. I. I990 so as to enable the election petitioners to invoke D
Section IO of the General Clauses Act.
The appellant bad contested for the assembly seat from Avina-
goda constituency and declared elected on November 26, 1989 to the
Andbra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. An election petition calling in
question bis election was med by the respondents in the High Court of E
Andbra Pradesh on the re-opening day of the Conrt after Sankranthi
vacation on January 15, 1990. As the statutory period of fortyfive days
under section 81 of the Act bad expired during the vacations, the
appellant moved an application praying for dismissal of the election
petition, inter alia on the ground of limitation. It was contended that the
Registry was open dnring this vacation, two Assistant Registrars were F
on duty, urgent applications were disposed of by the vacation judges
and In fact 25 election petitions were med during this period. The High
..
Court rejected all the contentions and dismissed bis application and
relying on Section 10 of the General Clauses Act held that ming of the
Election Pitition on the re-opening day of the Court was within limita-
tion. The correctness of the decision of the Higl/ Court bas been cbal-
G
lenged by the successful candidate In this appeal by special leave.
Atrmnlng the judgment of the High Court and dismissing the appeal,
this Court,
HELD: Sections 4 and S of the Limitation Act have no application
to the elfdbt pdilioos nnder the Rtpn>eā¢ā¢aā¢ā¢'ll of the People Ad. The bmdll H
_I
'701
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
A of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act can however, be availed to have
limitation saved under the Act. [704D]
The notification dated December 29, 1989 nowhere stated that the
Registry would remain open. A bare reading of the said notification
leaves no manner of doubt that the Andhra Pradesh High Court
B remained closed for all purposes except for applications of urgent
nature for which vacation judges and vacation officers were designated.
There was no provision for filing of Election Petitions in the notification
and as such the filing of the election petition by the respondents on
re-opening day of the High Court by invoking Section lO of the General
Clauses Act, was justified. There Is no infirmity in the reasoning and
C the conclusions reached by the High Court. [706C, 708C]
D
Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. La/it Narain Mishra, (1974] 3 SCR
31; Hari Shanker Tripathi v. Shiv Harsh and Others, (1976] U.J. (S.C.)
242 and H.H. Raja Harinder Singh v. S. Kamai/ Singh, (1957] S.C.R.
208, followed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4532
(NCE) of 1990.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10. 7. 1990 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Election Application No. 282 in Election Peti-
E
tion No. 26 of 1980.
F
C. Sitaramaih, M.A. Chinnasama and M. Raghuraman for the
Appellant.
B. Parthasarthy for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KULDIP SINGH, J. The question for our consideration in this
appeal is whether an election petition under the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) filed on the re-opening
G
ot"the High Court after vacations, the period of forty-five days under
Section 81 of the Act having run-out during the vacations, was liable to
be dismissed under Section 86 of the Act.
The elections to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly were
held on November 22, 1989. The appellant contested the assembly-
{
H
seat from Avinagoda constituency. He was declared elected on
SIMHADRI SATYA v. BUDDA PRASAD {KULDIP SINGH, J.]
703
November 26, 1989. An election petition calling in question the appel-
A
!ants elecExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.