Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Prakash Patel vs Prescribed Authority Cum Sub ... on 17 January, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2185
1 WP-31875-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 17th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 31875 of 2023
AJAY PRAKASH PATEL
Versus
PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY CUM SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Piyush Bhatnagar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri Brijendra Kumar Mishra - Advocate for Respondent No.2.
ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved of order Annexure P/8 dated 20.6.2023 passed by the Prescribed Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Maihar, District Satna in Election Petition No.005/C144/22-23 rejecting the election petition only on the ground that it was not filed within a period of thirty days in terms of the requirement of Section 122(2) of the Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have filed their reply and have admitted that the election took place on 14.7.2022, the election petition could have been filed upto 13.8.2022, 13.8.2022 was a holiday being second Saturday, 14.8.2022 was Sunday and 15.8.2022 was a national holiday, therefore, the election petition was filed on 16.8.2022 and that should have been taken to be within limitation. The chronology of dates Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 1/17/2025 6:59:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2185 2 WP-31875-2023 is not disputed by the other side.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 places reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in Pramila Bai versus Sub Divisional Officer, Bareli & Others 1999 (2) M.P.L.J 209.
The law laid down by the Division Bench of this High Court in Satya Narayan versus Additional Commissioner, Ujjain & Others 2008 (1) M.P.LJ. 505 provided that the day on which the election was held to be excluded for computing the period of limitation. In that case, the election was held on January 29, 2005. The respondent No.2 was declared as elected member of the Jila Panchayat. An election petition was maintainable within a period of thirty days. The election petitioner filed election petition on February 28, 2005. As per the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1957, the day on which the election was held on January 29, 2005 to be excluded for computing the period of limitation. The election petition had been filed within the period of limitation. Even otherwise, it is fairly informed by learned counsel for the parties that February 27, 2005 was a Sunday and the election petition had been filed on the next opening day i.e February 28, 2005, therefore, the election petition was treated to be within limitation.
Sections 6 & 7 of the General Clauses Act, 1957 read as under:-
"6. Commencement and termination of time. - In any Madhya Pradesh Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first of series of days or any other period of time; to use the word "from" and, for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or any other period of Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 1/17/2025 6:59:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2185 3 WP-31875-2023 time, to use the word "to".
7. Computation of time - Where, by any Madhya Pradesh Act, any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any Court or Office on a certain day or within a specified period, then if the Court or Office is closed on that day or the last day of the specified period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day on which the Court or Office is open."
The judgment of Pramila Bai versus Sub Divisional Officer, Bareli & Others (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is distinguishable on its own facts and has no application to the facts & circumstances of the present case especially because Hon'ble Division Bench i n Pramila Bai versus Sub Divisional Officer, Bareli & Others (supra) has not taken into consideration the provisions contained in Sections 6 & 7 of the General Clauses Act, 1957.
In view of the aforesaid and in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in Satya Narayan versus Additional Commissioner, Ujjain & Others (supra), the impugned order cannot be given a seal of approval. The impugned order Annexure P/8 dated 20.6.2023 passed by the Prescribed Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Maihar, District Satna in Election Petition No.005/C144/22-23 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the concerned Sub Divisional Officer/Authorized Officer/Election Tribunal to adjudicate the election petition on its own merits Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 1/17/2025 6:59:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2185 4 WP-31875-2023 and decide it within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed & disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time: 1/17/2025 6:59:19 PM