jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 19]
ubZ fnYyh, vxLr 24—vxLr 30] 2014] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 2 —Hkkæ 8] 1936
No. 19]
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 24—AUGUST 30, 2014, SATURDAY/BHADRA 2—BHADRA 8, 1936
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds A
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation.
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (iii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (iii)
dsUæh; vf/dkfj;ksa (la?k jkT; {ks=k iz'kkluksa dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Orders and Notifications Issued by Central Authorities (other than the Administrations of Union Territories)
Hkkjr fuokZpu vk;ksx
ubZ fnYyh] 25 vxLr] 2014
vk-v- 25-—yksd izfrfuf/Ro vf/fu;e] 1951 (1951
dh 43) dh /kjk 106 ds vuqlj.k esa] Hkkjr fuokZpu vk;ksx
>kj[k.M jkT; ls jkT; lHkk ds fy, ,d lnL; ds :i esa
Jh doj nhi flag ds fuokZpu ij iz'u mBkrs gq, Jh vt; ek#
}kjk ntZ dh xbZ 2010 dh fuokZpu ;kfpdk la- 11 ij jkaph fLFkr
mPp U;k;ky; ds fnukad 07 ekpZ] 2013 ds vkns'k dks ,rn~}kjk
izdkf'kr djrk gS A
(layXu vkns'k vaxzsth Hkkx esa Nik gS)
¹la- 82@>kj[k.M&jk-l-@11@2010@2014º
vkns'k ls]
ds- vt; dqekj] iz/ku lfpo
3222 GI/2014
(109)
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
New Delhi, the 25th August, 2014
O.N. 25 .—In pursuance of Section 106 of the Rep-
resentation, of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Elec-
tion Commission of India hereby publishes the order dated
07th March, 2013, of the High Court of Judicature at Ranchi
in Election Petition No. 11 of 2010 filed by Sh. Ajay Maroo
calling in question the election of Sh. Kanwar Deep Singh
as the Member of Council of States from the State of
Jharkhand.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Election Petition No. 11 of 2010
Ajay Maroo
..... Petitioner
Versus
Sri Kanwar Deep Singh & Anr.
.... Respondents
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH
TIWARI
110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
For the Petitioner
: None
For the Respondents
: Mr. A.K. Lall, Advocate
29/07.03.2013
Learned counsel for the contesting
respondents (respondent no. 1) appears but nobody ap-
pears on behalf of the petitioner. On 14.02.2013, the
petitioner's counsel had submitted that he had no instruc-
tion to proceed with the petition. On week's time was granted
to file an application to that regard but neither any applica-
tion has been filed nor anybody appears in spite of calls.
This Election Petition is, accordingly, dismissed for
non prosecution.
Let a copy of the order be sent to the Election Com-
mission for further needful and sending the order for pub-
lication in official gazette.
( Narendra Nath Tiwari, J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Election Petition No. 11 of 2010
Ajay Maroo
..... Petitioner
Versus
Sri Kanwar Deep Singh & Anr.
.... Respondents
Coram: HON'BlE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH
TIWARI
For the Petitioner
: Mr. K.K. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents
: Mr. A.K. Lall, Advocate
I. A. No. 140/2013
19/10.01.2013
In this I.A., the petitioner has prayed
for four week's time to inspect the court records and to take
certified copy of the documents available on record.
It has been stated that several documents, which
were called for, have been received and the petitioner for
preparation of the hearing of the case wants to inspect the
said records and also to obtain certified copy of some of
the documents. For that purpose, the petitioner has prayed
for four weeks' time.
Learned counsel for the respondents does not
oppose the prayer.
Considering the above, the hearing of the case is
adjourned. Put up this case on 14th February, 2013.
I.A. stands disposed of.
( Narendra Nath Tiwari, J)
Election Petition No. 11/2010
Perused the request made by the Director, Ministry
of Food Processing Industries, Government of India, New
Delhi dated 7.1.2013, intimating the compliance of the
order of this court and sending original documents in
connection with the instant election petition. It has been
requested therein to return original document to one Shri
Nitesh Ranjan, Assistant, Ministry of Food Processing
Industries.
Let it be kept on record for reference to be used by
the office at the appropriate time for giving back the
original document after the purpose thereof is served in
connection with this election petition.
( Narendra Nath Tiwari, J)
[No. 82/JH-CS/11/2010/2014]
By Order ,
K. AJAYA KUMAR, Principal Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 26 vxLr] 2014
vk-v- 26-—yksd izfrfuf/Ro vf/fu;e] 1951 (1951
dh 43) dh /kjk 106 ds vuqlj.k esa] Hkkjr fuokZpu vk;ksx
>kj[k.M fo/ku lHkk ds lnL;ksa }kjk jkT; lHkk ds fy, ,d lnL;
ds :i esa Jh ifjey ukFkokuh ds fuokZpu ij iz'u mBkrs gq,
Jh fd'kksj yky }kjk ntZ dh xbZ 2008 dh fuokZpu ;kfpdk la- 1
ij jkaph fLFkr mPp U;k;ky; ds fnukad 08 ebZ] 2014 ds vkns'k
dks ,rn~}kjk izdkf'kr djrk gS A
(layXu vkns'k vaxzsth Hkkx esa Nik gS)
¹la- 82@>kj[k.M&jk-l-@1@2008@2014º
vkns'k ls]
ds- vt; dqekj] iz/ku lfpo
New Delhi, the 26th August, 2014
O. N. 26 .—In pursuance of Section 106 of the Rep-
resentation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Elec-
tion Commission of India hereby publishes the order dated
08th May, 2014, of the High Court of Judicature at Ranchi
in Election Petition No. 1 of 2008 filed by Sh. Kishor Lal
calling in question the election of Sh. Parima1 Nathwani as
the Member of Council of States from the State of
Jharkhand.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
E.P. No.1 of 2008
Kishor Lal
.... Petitioner
Versus
Sri Parimal Nathwani & Ors.
....Respondents
Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondents : None
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(iii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
111
53/08.05.2014
Nobody appears on behalf of the par-
ties nor any step has been taken by them.
This election petition is dismissed for non-prosecu-
tion. Consequent thereto, I. A. Nos. 2345 of 2014 & 2490 of
2014 stand disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Election
Commission for further needful and sending this order for
publication in official gazette.
Sd-/
(Narendra Nath 'I'iwari, J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Election Petition No. 01 of 2008
Kishor Lal
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Sri Parimal Nathwani.
2. Sri R. K.Anand.
3. Sri Jay Prakash Narayan Singh
... Respondents
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINHA
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Shashak Shekhar Prasad,
Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1:
Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha,
Sr. Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2: None.
For the Respondent No. 3: Mr. V. P. Singh, Sr. Advocate .
C. A.V. on 10.06.2011 :
Pronounced on 27.07.2011
D. K. Sinha, J.
The petitioner Kishor Lal has brought
about the Election Petition under Section 81 of the
Representation of the People Act. 1951 calling in question
the election of Respondent No.1 Sri Parimal Nathwani in
the Rajaya Sabha elected by the members of Jharkhand
Legislative Assembly in biennial election held in the month
of March, 2008.
The Respondent No.1 Sri Parimal Nathwani and
Respondent No. 3 Sri Jay Prakash Narayan Singh appeared
in this Election Petition by executing Vakalatnama but in
spite of notice sent to the Respondent No. 2 Shri R.K.Anand
and thereafter publication of notice in the daily newspaper
"Times of India" in the Delhi Edition, calling him to appear,
the Respondent No. 2 Shri R.K.Anand did not prefer to
enter appearance hence the parties were called upon to
suggest issues, accordingly they proposed the issues which
were settled on recast. In the meantime, two Interlocutory
Applications were filed on behalf of the
Respondent No. 1 Shri Parimal Nathwani challenging the
maintainability of this Election Petition brought about by
the petitioner herein.
I. A. No. 1170 of 2010
The Interlocutory Application has been filed by the
Respondent No.1 by raising preliminary issue as to the
maintainability of the Election Petition filed by the
petitioner Kishor Lal. The respondent agitated that the
instant Election Petition cannot be heard on merit before
deciding the preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. The issue is that the Election
Petition in its present form is barred by limitation. Section
81 of the Representation of People Act. 1951 provides that
an Election Petition, calling in question the validity of any
election must be filed within 45 days from the date of
election of the returned candidate. In the instant case the
Respondent No.1 was declared returned candidate by the
Returning Officer on 26.03.2008 and this Election Petition
was filed by the petitioner on 12.05.2008 i.e. on the 48th
day of declaration of the result of the election of the
returned candidate, as such, there was delay of 3 days in
filing the Election Petition. There is no provision under the
R.P .Act,1951 for condonation of delay in the matter of
Election Petition and therefore, this petition being barred
by limitation is liable to be dismissed in limine.
The Interlocutory Application further contended that
the instant Election Petition was also liable to be rejected
for non-compliance of the provision of Section 83 (i), 86
(A) and Section 132 of the Representation of People Act,
1951 being mandatory in nature and that the Election
Petition was liable to be rejected for non-compliance of
Order VII Rule 11 also.
In reply to the said Interlocutory Petition, the peti-
tioner in his rejoinder dated 30.03.2010 explained that the
Election Petition was filed by him within 45 days commenc-
ing from 27.03.2008 which was the next date of declaration
of the returned candidate. The result was declared on
26.03.2009 as such the date 26.03.2009 was to be excluded
for counting of the limitation. period. The provision of 45
days within which the Election Petition has to be filed and
if the limitation is counted from 27.03.2008, the 45th days
fell on 10th May, 2008 the office of the High Court re-
mained closed on that day being the 2nd Saturday and
11th May, 2008 was Sunday therefore, the election petition
was filed on the following day i.e. on 12.05.2008, as such,
the Election Petition was fiied by the petitioner within the
period of limitation of 45 days.
The election petitioner further explained that he fully
complied with the each and every provision required for
filing Election Petition in its true spirit and that there was
no provision as such being Section 86A in the Representa-
tion of People Act. 1951 therefore raising the issue for its
compliance would be redundant. Section 132 of the Act
112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
was not relevant as it provide penalty for misconduct at
the polling station.
The election petitioner explained further that the
averments made in the election petition disclosed specific
cause of action enabling him to put his claim for relief. The
Respondent No.1 was not specific in the Interlocutory
Petition as to which provision of orders VII Rule 11 Code
of Civil Procedure was not complied by the election peti-
tioner so as to render the election petition liable to be re-
jected.
The Respondent No.1 replied that the preliminary
objection was raised as to the maintainability of the
Election Petition on the ground that Section 81 of the
Representation of People Act. 1951 was not complied in
presenting the election petition within statutory limitation
of 45 days from the date of election of the returned
candidate. The election petition was filed on 12.05.2008 as
against the result of the election of Rajya Sabha declaring
the Respondent No.1 as returned candidate on 26.03.2008
and therefore, the election petition ought to have been
filed by 9th of May. 2008. The calculation made by the
petitioner was wrong as the counting of 45 days from the
date of, declaration of the election result i.e. 26.03.2008. 9th
May. 2008 being Friday was the last date for filing the
election petition whereas election petition was filed with
the delay ot three days on 12.05.2008 hence barred by
limitation and statute does not permit condonation of
delay .therefore. the election petition was liable to be
dismissed for non-compliance of Section 81 of the
Representation of People Act. 1951.
I.A. No. 3246 of 2010
The Respondent No.1 filed another Interlocutory
Application by raising a new issue to be decided as the
preliminary issue that election petition was presented by
the Counsel of the petitioner on 12.05.2008 and not by the
petitioner Kishor Lal himself. The mandate of sub-section
(1) of Section 81 of the Representation of People Act. 1951
required the election petition to be presented by the
candidate or elector relating to the election personally to
the authorized officer of the High Court and failure to
adhere such course would be contrary to the mandatory
provision of the Act and in that event the election petition
was liable to be dismissed on the ground of improper
presentation. The election petitioner did not appear
personally to present the Election Petition rather it was
presented through his Counsel which was totally in
contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 81 of the
Representation of People Act. 1951 and therefore. the
election petition was liable to be rejected.
In reply to the Interlocutory Application No. 3246
the election petitioner explained that it was not a fact that
the election petition was filed by his Counsel and not by
himself. He was accompanied by his Counsel at the time of
filing his election petition and that the petitioner had him-
self presented the petition to the authorized officer of this
Court. The election petitioner had sworn affidavit on
12.05.2008 before the Oath Commissioner of Jharkhand High
Court, Ranchi in support of the contents of the election
petition which would indicate that election petitioner was
present in the High Court and he presented the election
petition on 12.05.2008 before the authorized officer of the
Registry. After the election petition was filed. the stamp
reporter scrutinized and finding it valid forwarded the same
to the registry of the High Court under Rule 325 of the
Jharkhand High Court Rules and the Joint Registrar on
receiving report of the stamp reporter passed the following
order;
‘‘12.05.2008
Filed. Put up for admission.
Sd/-
Joint Registrar
( List and Computer)
The Court then admitted the Election Petition and
directed notices to be issued to the Respondents. These
all facts having bearing in the record would indicate
irresistible conclusion that the election petition was not
contrary to the provisions of Section 81 (1) of the
Re-presentation of the People Act. 1951.
Heard Mr. Shashak Shekhar Prasad, Learned Coun-
sel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha,
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1
and Mr. V. P. Singh, Learned Senior Counsel for the Re-
spondent No. 3. None appeared for the Respondent No. 2
Shri R K. Anand.
Learned Counsel Mr. Shashak Shekhar Prasad
submitted for the election petitioner that maintainability of
the election petition has been challenged on the grounds
that it was barred by limitation not presented by the
petitioner himself before the competent officer and that no
sufficient cause of action could be explained in the
election petition.
The Learned Counsel explained that the date of dec-
laration of result shall be excluded for counting the limita-
tion and therefore, limitation started from 27.03.2008 and
that 45th day fell on 10.05.2008 being the .secend Saturday
and 11th May, 2008 being the Sunday, hence Election Peti-
tion could be filed on 12.05.2008: He further explained that
since there was no provision in the Representation of the
People Act. 1951 as to how the election petition would be
filed on a holiday, hence following the provision of Section
9 & 10 of the General Clauses Act, both the holidays i.e.
the Saturday and Sunday were excluded and the petition
was filed on the opening on 12.05.2008 (Monday).
As per Section 67 A of the Representation of the
People Act. 1951, (in short the Act) the date on which can-
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(iii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
113
didate is declared by the returning officer under the provi-
sions of Section 53 or Section 66, to be elected to a House
of Parliament or of the legislature of a State shall be the
date of election of that candidate. In the instant case since
the result of the election was announced at about 3 p.m. on
26.03.2008 so this day was excluded for calculation of limi-
tation beginning from 27.03.2008.
In Tarun Prasad Chatterjee V. Dinannath Sharma,
reported in AIR. 2001 Supreme Court 36, the Apex Court
observed,
"However, the contention urged by the learned
counsel for the appellant in this case is that even if it
is held that Sec. 9 has an application to a petition
filed under Sec. 81 (1) of the R. P. Act, 1951, it could
be applied only in appropriate cases and is not to be
applied universally. The contention of the appellant
is that in view of the specific language employed in
Sec. 81(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951, the word "within"
and "from" used therein would indicate that Sec. 9
has no application. It was also urged that the legis-
lative mandate is that the election petition should be
filed within 45 days of the date of election of the
returned candidate and not earlier than the said date
or after 45 days of the said date. On these premises,
it was argued that Sec. 9 has no application in the
instant case."
It was further observed in the said decision by the
Apex Court.
"The first day for the period of limitation is required
to be excluded for the convenience of the parties
and if the
declaration of the result is delayed or is
done late in the night, the candidate or elector would
hardly get any time for presentation of the election
petition. Law comes to the rescue of such parties to
give full forty-five days' period for filing the election
petition. Nevertheless, any petition presented on the
date of election of the returned candidate would be
certainly within the period of limitation as it is a pre-
sentation on the date of election of the returned
candidate."
Advancing his argument. the learned Counsel for
the petitioner further submitted that maintainability of the
election petition was challenged on the ground of non-
compliance of the provision of the Act under Section 83(1).
8(A) 132 and order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Proce-
dure. There was no provision referred to in paragraph No.7
of the Interlocutory Application as Section 86(A) in the
Representation of the People Act. 1951. The present Inter-
locutory Application was filed complying the provisions
of section 81. Section 82 and Section 117 of the Represen-
tation of the People Act. 1951 and hence the petition was
not liable to be dismissed in limine. Section 132 of the Act
has got no relevancy as the same dealt with penalty for
misconduct at the polling station. Learned Counsel further
explained that none of the ingredients envisaged under
clause (a) to (d) of Rule 11 of order VII of the Code of Civil
Procedure could be attracted in the Election Petition so as
to call for its dismissal. The Respondent failed to pin point
the allegations in the Election Petition if true did not entitle
the petitioner to claim relief based upon detailed cause of
action as put in the petition.
The learned Counsel replying to the second issue
explained that the Election Petitioner had sworn his
affidavit on 12.05.2008 before the Oath Commissioner.
Jharkhand High Court. Ranchi in support of the conten-
tion/averment made in the Election Petition and he himself
presented the Election Petition before the authorized
officer as envisaged under Rule 325 of the High Court of
Jharkhand Rules 2001. The allegation as made in the Inter-
locutory Application by the Respondent No.1 as claimed
to be based upon the knowledge of the Respondent No.1
who was not supposed or expected to be present in the
High Court Premises, watching the activities of the
election petitioner personally, hence liable to be prosecuted
for filing false affidavit. There was nothing on the record of
the Election Petition on the basis of which the Respondent
No.1 would claim that the Election Petition was not
presented by the election petitioner himself but by his
Counsel and both the Interlocutory Petitions were liable to
be dismissed.
Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha. learned Sr. Counsel appearing
for the Respondent No.1 submitted that limitation as per
Section 81 (1) of the Act would start from the date of elec-
tion of the returned candidate and not from the subse-
quent day. It was not the case of the petitioner that the
result of biennial election of Rajya Sabha was declared late
in the night of 26.3.2008 so the date of result would be
excluded in calculating the limitation of 45 days.
In Youaraj Rai and Others Vrs. Chander Bahadur Karki,
reported in (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 770, the Apex
Court observed.
‘‘The learned Counsel also referred to the relevant
provisions of the Act as they originally stood in 1951
and the amended provisions after the Representa-
tion of the People (Second Amendment) Act, 1956
(Act 27 of 1956) and the Representation of the People
(Amendment) Act, 1961 (Act 14 of 1961). Section 81
of the Act, as it originally stood prior to the Amend-
ment Act, 1956, did not expressly provide period of
limitation for filing an election petition. It, however,
provided that an election petition calling in question
any election could be presented “in such form and
within such time as may be prescribed”. The word
“prescribed” was defined as ‘‘prescribed by the rules
made under the Act". Parliament, however, thought
it fit to prescribe the period of limitation. By the
Amendment Act, 1956, therefore, it amended Section
114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 30, 2014/BHADRA 8, 1936
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
81 by expressly providing the period of limitation of
forty-five days from the date of election of the
‘‘returned candidate" . To avoid any doubt and to
make the position explicitly clear as to what should
be the date on which a candidate can be said to have
been declared elected, Parliament also inserted
Section 67-A clarifying that the date on which the
candidate is declared elected by the Returning
Officer would be the date of election of that candi-
date."
The learned Sr. Counsel consistently argued that the
Election Petition was not presented by the petitioner him-
self but by his Counsel before an Officer of the High Court
in the Registry, who was not authorized under Rule 325 of
the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 to accept Election
Petition. Rule 325 of Jharkhand High Court Rules 2001 deals
with presentation of the Election Petition which speaks:-
Rule 325(1) Every Election Petition shall be presented
in the Registry of the Court in the same manner as is
applicable to the presentation of other cases under
these Rules. On the Election Petition being so
presented, the Stamp Reporter of the Court shall
endorse his report thereon and finding that it con-
forms to all requirements of law, is in time, properly
stamped for the purposes of Court fee etc. and is
accompanied by the requisite fee payable, send it to
the Registrar General for listing before the Judge who
has been assigned by the Chief Justice for this pur-
pose."
But in the instant case it was admitted by the
petitioner that the Election Petition was presented before
the Joint Registrar (List and Computer) and not before the
Registrar General of the High Court, an authorized officer
under the Rule to receive the Election Petition in
consonance with the provisions of Section 81(1) of the
Representation of the People Act. 1951. In G.. V. Sreerama
Reddy & Anr. Vrs. Returning Officer & Ors, reorted in 2010
(1) JLJR (S.C.) page 11 the Apex Court observed,
"In view of the. endorsement by the
Registrar(Judicial) on 7.7.2008 that the election peti-
tion was presented only by an advocate and not by
the election petitioners, we accept the reasoning of
the High Court in dismissing the election petition.
We further hold that as per sub-section (1) of
Section 81, election petition is to be presented by
any candidate or elector relating to the election
personally to the authorized officer of the High Court
and failure to adhere such course would be contrary
to the said provision and in that event the
election petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of improper presentation. Since, the High
Court has correctly dismissed the election petition,
the civil appeal fails and the same is dismissed with
no order as to costs.”
Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. V.P.Singh appearing on
behalf of the Respondent No.3 submitted that he may be
permitted to adopt the argument advanced on behalf of the
Respondent No.1 which is allowed.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner as
also for the Respondent No.1 by the respective Counsels
on the facts of the case and the preliminary issues raised
by the Respondent No.1 and replied by the petitioner, I
find that the main points which need consideration being
the preliminary issues are as to whether or not the election
petition as brought about by the petitioner Shri Kishor Lal
is time barred as it could not be filed within 45 days of
limitation and that the Election Petition was not presented
by him but by his Counsel Shashak Shekhar Prasad on
12.05.2008.
In Tarun Prasad Chatterjee V. Dinannath Sharma, re-
ported in A.I.R. 2001 Supreme Court 36, the Apex Court
observed that the first day of the period of limitation was
required to be excluded for the convenience of the parties
and if the declaration of the result was delayed or was
done late in the night. the candidate or elector would hardly
any time for presentation of the election petition.
In the instant case the averment of the petitioner
was that result of biennial election of Rajya Sabha was
declared at about 3 p.m. on 26.03.2008 and not late in the
night so as to get the advantage of one day for calculation
of the limitation beginning from 27.03.2008. In Youaraj Rai
and Others Vrs. Chander Bahadur Karki, reported in (2007)
1 Supreme Court Cases 770, the Apex Court had given a
contrary view by interpreting the provision of Section 81
(1) of the Representation of People Act. 1950 wherein it
was held that the Amendment Act, 1956 amended Section
81 by expressly providing the period of limitation of 45
days from the date of election of the returned candidate
and to avoid any doubt and to make the position explicitly
clear as to what should be the date, on which a candidate
could be said to have been declared elected. Section 67 A
was inserted clarifying that the date on which the
candidate is declared elected by the Returning Officer
would be the date of election of that candidate and that no
concession for any day was provided even in view of
delayed commencement of the result, may be late in the
night. I, therefore, find and observe that if the limitation is
calculated from the date of result on 26.03.2008 of the
biennial election, 45th day fell on 9th May, 2006 which was
Friday and the petitioner did not file the Election Petition
within the period of limitation of 45 days but it was filed on
12.05.2008 with the delay of 3 days. As there was no
statutory provision for the condonation of delay in filing
the Election Petition for whatever may be the reason, the
Election Petition is not maintainable under Section 81 (1) of
the Representation of the People Act. 1951. This issue is
decided in favour of the Respondent No.1 and against the
petitioner.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(iii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 30] 2014@Hkkæ 8] 1936
115
The next point which has been raised by the
Respondent No.1 is that the Election Petition was not filed
by the Election Petitioner himself as it is evident from the
first page of the 'cause title' of the Election Petition wherein
endorsement was made by the learned Counsel,
‘‘Through
Shashak Shekhar Prasad,
Advocate.
12.05.2008"
The mandate of sub-section(1) of Section 81 of the
Representation of People Act. 1951 required that Election
Petition is to be presented by the candidate or elected in
relation to the election personally to the authorized officer
of the Hon'ble High Court and failure to adhere such course
would be contrary to the said provisions and in that event
election petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of
improper presentation.
Rule 325 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rule, 2001
indicates that it has to be presented in the Registry of the
Court and shall be sent to the Registrar General with the
endorsement of the Stamp Reporter for its listing before
the Judge, who has been assigned by the Chief Justice for
this purpose. In this case I find that the Election Petition
was presented before the Joint Registrar ( List and Com-
puter) on 12.05.2008 without any endorsement made therein
that it was filed by the Election Petitioner himself. The next
order dated 13.06.2008 indicated that the Election Judge of
this Court directed the Election Petition to be put up
before him with office note through Registrar General
regarding defect No.1 as pointed out and in that manner
the Election Petition reached before the Registrar General,
who was an Authorized Officer of the Registry to receive
Election Petition by the judicial order and not on the
presentation of the petition.
In G.V.Sreerama Reddy & Anr Vrs. Returning Officer
& Ors., reported in 2010(1) J.L.J.R. page 10 (S.C.), the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6269 of 2008 decided on
11.08.2009 observed,
"One can discern the reason why the petition is
required to be presented by the petitioner personally. An
election petition is a serious matter with a variety of
consequences. Since such a petition may lead to the
vitiation of a democratic process, any procedure provided
by an election statute must be read strictly. Therefore, the
Legislature has provided that the petition must be
presented "by" the petitioner himself, so that at the time of
presentation, the High Court may make preliminary
verification which ensure that the petition is neither frivo-
lous nor vexatious."
From perusal of the entire order-sheet as well as
Election Petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, I find
nowhere endorsement either of the Stamp Reporter or of
the Joint Registrar or the Registrar General of this Court
that the Election Petition was presented by the petitioner
himself for preliminary verification that the petition was
neither frivolous nor vexatious. I further find from the affi-
davit of the petitioner sworn supporting the contents of
the Election Petition that he himself presented the petition
either before the Oath Commissioner or before the
Authorized Officer of the Registry under Rule 325 of the
High Court of Jharkhand Rule, 2001.
For the reasons stated above, I find that the peti-
tioner in that manner contravened the statutory and man-
datory provision of Section 81 (1) of the Representation of
the People Act. 1951.
In view of the above discussions I find and observe
that this Election Petition has been filed neither within the
period of limitation of 45 days of the result of the Election
of the returned candidate nor it was presented by the peti-
tioner- Kishor Lal himself which amount to contravention
of the mandatory provisions of Section 81 (1) of the Repre-
sentation of the People Act. 1951 and therefore, both the
issues are decided in favour of the Respondent No.1 and
against the petitioner, accordingly, the Election Petition is
dismissed since barred by limitation and on improper pre-
sentation.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1170 of 2010 and I.A.No.3246
of 2010 are allowed in favour of the Respondent No.1 and
hence disposed of.
P.K.S./A.F.R.
[D.K.Sinha, J.]
[No. 82/JH-CS/1/2008/2014]
By Order,
K. AJAYA KUMAR, Principal Secy.
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.