LexTARUN PRASAD CHATTERJEE versus DINANATH SHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E Election TARUN PRASAD CHATTERJEE v. DIN ANA TH SHARMA OCTOBER 10, 2000 [DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., R.C. LAHOTI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section 81(1) Election Petition-Presentation of-Computation of period of limitation under- Provisions of General Clauses Act-Applicability of-Held, applicable- Thus, the date of election of returned candidate should be excluded for computing the period of limitation-Genera/ Clauses Act, 1897-Section 9. Election Petition-Presentation of-Period of limitation-Computation of-Presentation of Election Petition on the date of election of returned candidate-Maintainability of-Held, well within limitation period Words & Phrases "From" and "within "-Meaning and connotation of in the context of Section 81(1) of Representation of the People Act, 1951. Appellant and respondent contested the Legislative Assembly election and appellant was declared elected on 28.11.1998. Respondent filed an election p petition under section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on 12.1.1999. Appellant filed an application for dismissing the said election petition as not maintainable as not filed within 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate. However, Single Judge of High Court dismissed the application of appellant holding that the election petition was filed within time in view of Section 9 of General Clauses Act, 1897. Hence the present G appeal On behalf of appellant it was contended that in view of the specific language used in Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, the words "within" and "from" used therein indicate that Section 9 of the General H Clauses Act has no application; that if the date of the election of the candidate 634 TARUN PRASAD CHATTERJEE v. DINANATH SHARMA 635 was excluded for computing the period of limitation of 45 days, the period of A limitation would extend by one day which would be against the mandate of the statute. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is applicable in B computing the period of limitation under Section 81(1) of the 'Representation of the People Act, 1951. The principle contained in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act is that when a period is delimited by statute or rule, which has both a beginning and an end and the word "from" is used indicating the beginning, the opening day is to be excluded and if the last day is to be included C the word "to" is to be used. Thus, in order to apply Section 9 the first condition to be fulfilled is whether a prescribed period is fixed "from" a particular point When the period is marked by terminus a quo and terminus ad quem, the canon of interpretation envisaged in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 require to exclude the first day. The words "from" and "within" used in Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 do not express any contrary intention. D Thus, the date of election of the returned candidate has to be excluded for computing the period of limitation for presenting a petition under Section 81(1) of the R.P. A~t. In the instant case, the date of election of the returned candidate being 28.11.1998, the election petition filed on 12.1.1999 on exclusion of the first day from computing the period of limitation was in time. (639-A; 640-A-B-D; 641-CJ E K. Venkateswara Rao and Anr. v. Bekkam Narasimha Reddiand Ors., AIR (1969) SC 872; Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and Anr., AIR (1996) SC 796; H.H. Raja Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail Singh and Ors., AIR (1957) SC 271; Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. La/it Narain Mishra, AIR (1974) F SC 480 and Simhadri Satya Narayana Rao v. M Budda Prasad and Ors., [1994) Supp. 1 SCC 449, relied on. Hals bury Laws of England, 37th Edition, Volume 3 page 92, referred to. 2. Any election petition presented on the date of election of the returned G candidate would be certainly within the period of limitation as it is a presentation on the date of election of the returned candidate. (641-B) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2937 of2000. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.9.99 of the Madhya Pradesh H 636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A High Court in E.P. No. 27of1999. P.P. Rao, Prakash Shrivastava and Dilip Tandon for the Appellant. B.S. Banthia for the Respondents. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALAKRISHNAN, J. The short question involved
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.