Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Yerra Krishna Murthy And Ors. vs Mariserla Sivannaidu And Ors. on 1 January, 1800
Equivalent citations: 1991(2)ALT164
ORDER Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J.
1.These four applications are heard and are being disposed of together as common questions arise for consideration.
2. In Election application Nos. 277/1990 and 269 1990 in Election Petition Nos. 31 and 33 of 1990 respectively, the maintainablity of Election Petition Nos. 31and 33 of 1990 is challenged on the ground of limitation. In Election Application Nos. 257/1990 and 282/1990 in Election Petition Nos. 25 and 26/1990 respectively, apart from the question of limitation the petitioners urged the non-supply of documents which form an integral part of the Election Petitions as an additional ground. The petitioners in all these Election Applications pray that the Election Petitions should be dismissed in limine without the necessity of recording evidence and deciding the Election Petitions on merits.
3. The elections for the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly were held all over the State on 22-11-1989. It is represented that in Election petition No. 26/1990 the result of the elected candidate was declared on 26-11-1989 whereas the result of the elected candidates was declared in Election Petition Nos. 25, 31, and 33 of 1990 on 27-11-1989. The limitation for filing the Election Petition is 45 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the last date for filing Election Petition No. 26/1990 is 10-1-1990 where as the last date for filing Election petition Nos. 25, 31 and 33/1990 is 11-1-1990 that Election Petition No. 25/90 was filed on 12-1-90 that the other Election Petitions were not filed on or before the last date of limitation but were filed on 15-1-1990 which happened to be the re-opening day for the High Court after Sankranthi vacation; that the Representation or the people Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') being a complete code with regard to the determination of disputes arising out of the elections, the Election Petitions will have to be filed within 45 days from the date of declaration of the result of the Election; that Section 5 of the limitation Act has no application to Election Petitions; that though the Judges did not function during the Sankranthi vacation, the Registry of the High Court v/as working upto 12-1-1990; that the filing of the Election Petitions within 45 days from the date of the declaration of the result is mandatory and that since the Election Petition Nos. 25, 26, 31 and 33 of 1990 were filed beyond 45 days from the date of the declaration of the result of the election, the Election petitions will have to be dismissed in limine. The learned counsel further argued that there is no prohibition for the Registry of the High Court to receive the Election Petitions filed during the Sankranthi Vacation and as such, the election petitioners cannot take advantage of the Sankranthi vacation and file the Election Petitions on 15-1-1990. Inasmuch as the Election Petitions were filed beyond the period of 45 days from the date of the declaration of the result of the election, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Election Petitions are barred by time.
4. The Supreme Court, as long back as in the years 1968, held in K.V. Rao v. B.N. Reddi, ( AIR 1989 SC 872) that the Limitation Act cannot apply to proceedings like an Election petition inasmuch as the Act is a complete and self-contained code which does not admit of the introduction of the principles or the provisions of law contained in the Limitation Act. Their Lordships, however held that eventhough the Limitation Act of 1963 does not apply to an Election Petition, provisions like Sections 9 and 10 of the General Clauses Act of 1897, providing for computation of time which are in pari-materia with sections 12(1) and 4 of the Limitation Act would apply to such a petition. It is, therefore, to be examined as to whether the provisions of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act can be invoked in these cases to save the limitation.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Hukumdev v. Lalit Narain, wherein the Supreme Court has reitereted the position that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not govern the filing of the Election, Petition or their trial. The Supreme Court held in that case that even if Section 4 of the Limitation Act does not apply, Section 10 of the General Clauses Act will certainly apply to election petitions to be filed under the Act and that if that it the Court is closed on the day when the limitation expired, Section 10(1) of the General Clauses Act enables the filing on the next working day of the Cour. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court, however, reading rules 6 and 7 of the Election Rules made by the Patna High Court with Rule 26 of Chapter VII Part II of Patna High Court Rules, observed that an Election Petition can be presented on the last day of limitation, even when the Judges are not sitting to receive or entertain an Election Petition on that day, to the Registrar or in his absence, to the other officers specified in Rule 26 of the Rules In the case before the Supreme Court in Hukumdev v. Lalit Narain (case 2 supra), the last date for filing Election Petition fell on a Saturday on which day no Bench was sitting. Relying upon Rule 26 which provides that on any court day on which no Bench is or has been sitting, any mermoandum of appeal or application which might be barred by time and which is entertainable only by a Bench may presented to the Registrar or in his absence to the Deputy Registrar or the Assistant Registrar, provided that such memorandum of Appeal or application shall be presented to a Bench on the next subsequent day on which the Bench is sitting, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court while holding that Rule 26 of the Patna High Court Rules applies to Election Petitions also held that the court is not in fact closed on a Saturday even though the Judges may not sit on that day and that there can be no manner of doubt that an Election Petition can be presented on the last day of limitation even when the Judges are not sitting to receive or entertain an Election Petition, to the Registrar or in his absence to the other officers specified in Rule 26. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court have concluded that the election petition filed on Monday instead of Saturday which happened to be the last date of limitation for filing the Election Petition was barred by limitation.
6. A single Judge of Mysore High Court in P. Naranappa v. A. Shankar Alva, ( AIR 1973 Mysore 78) has considered the question whether an election petition can claim the benefit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act when the period of limitation has expired when the High Court was closed for vacation under a notification. The Mysore High Court while closing for vacation issued a notification to the effect that the High Court was closed with regard to the matters of civil nature with certain exceptions. The notification dated 30th March, 1972 while mentioning that the High Court of Mysore would be closed for the Summer vacation 1972 from 17th April, 1972 to 21st May, 1972 (both days inclusive) specifically provided that Election Petition presented to the High Court under Section 81 of the Act will, however, be received during the vacation. While repelling the contention that an Election Petition is a proceeding of civil nature and as such, come within Clause (1) of the said notification to the effect that no appeal or application of civil nature will be received during the vacation ..............., the learned Judge held that the provision made in the notification regarding the Election Petitions is one which partakes of the character of a provision made ex abundami eautela.
7. In the case before the Kerala High Court in K.K. Mohammed Doya v. P.M Sayeed a similar question arose. The period of limitation for filing the Election petition expired during the summer vacation for the High Court. In exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 80-A of the Act, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala nominated one judge of the High Court to try election petitions. The Chief justice nominated, during the Summer vacation two other judges to function as vacation Judge Since the Chief justice has. already assigned one judge of the High Court to try the Election petitions, it is held that it cannot be said that the Judge who functioned during the summer vacation had the authority to try the Election petitions. Consequently, it is held that during the Summer vacation, the High Court was closed for the purpose of application of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, since the period of limitation of 45 days expired during the currency of the vacation, the learned judge held that the petitioner had time till the reopening date to file the Election petition.
8. A single judge of Allahabad High Court in Hari Shankar v. Sheo Harakh, has taken the view that there is no rule restricting the functions of the Registrar of the office of the High Court during the vacation; that therefore, an Election petition can be presented to him during the vacation and that where the period of limitation for the Election petition has expired on 14-6-1974, there was no justification for the non presentation of the petition to the Registrar before the expiry of that period and as such the Election petition filed on 8-7-74 which is the first working day after the reopening of the High Court is barred by time. But that decision (5) (supra) is reversed by the Supreme Court in Hari Shankar Tripathi v. Shiv Harsh and Ors.( 1976 U.J. (SO 242) By virtue of the notification of the Allahabad High Court dated 22nd September, 1973 when the High Court calendar for 1974 was approved by the Court after inviting objections from the members of the Public, the High Court has declared the summer vacation to be from 25th may to 7th july, 1974. Interpreting that notification, Fazal Ali, J. speaking for the Supreme Court held that the legal position would be that the Summer vaca-tion viz., the period starting from May, 25th and ending on July 7, 1974 would be deemed to be closed holiday for the High Court. Inasmuch as the period of limitation for filing the Election petition expired on 14th June, 1974, the Supreme Court held that the Election petitioner was fully justified in filing the petition on 8th July, 1974 when the court re-opened after the Summer vacation.
9. A review of the cases referred to above clearly shows that the question of filing an Election petition on the last date of limitation when it falls during the vacation of the Court depends upon the notification issued by the High Court while granting the vacation. For example, in P. Nara-nappa v. Shankara Alva (case 3 supra) the prohibition enjoined in the notification has been confined to matters of civil nature but did not apply to Election petition presented to the High Court under Section 81 of the Act. Clause (2) of the notification dated 30th March, 1972 specifically provided that the Election petition presented under Section 81 of the Act will be received during the vacation. Similarly in Hukumdev v. Lalit Narain (Case (2) Supra Rules 6 and 7 of the Election rules made by the Patna High Court and Rule 26 of Chapter VII part II of Patna High Court Rules provide for an Election petition being presented on the last day of limitation even when the Judges were not sitting to receive or entertain an Election petition on that day, to the Registrar or in his absence to the other officers specified in Rule 26 of the Rules. In K.K. Mohamad Koya v. P.M. Sayeed (case (4) supra) the Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala has nominated one Judge of the High Court to try Election petitions but the Judge so appointed did not function at any time. The Chief Justice nominated, during the vacation, two other Judges to function as vacation Judges. Since the Chief Justice has already assigned one Judge of the High Court to try the Election petitions, it was held that the Judges who have functioned during the Summer vacation had no authority to try Election petition and therefore, the High Court was closed for the purpose of application of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act. Similarly in Hari Shankar Tripathi v. Shiva Harsha and Ors. (case (6) Supra), by virtue of the notification of the Allahabad High Court dated 22-9-1973 declaring the Summer vacation from May 25 to July 7, 1974, the Supreme Court held that the period cave-red by the Summer vacation would be closed holidays for the High Court thereby attracting Section 10 of the General clauses Act.
10. In view of the various decisions referred to above it is necessary to consider the scope and effect of the notification R.O.C. No. 5463/89-C3 dated 29-12-1989 that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh would remain closed for the Sankranti vacation from Tuesday, the 2nd January to Friday, the 12th January, 1990 (both days inclusive) and nominating one of the Hon'ble Judges to be the vacation Judge from 2-1-1990 to 6-1-1990 and another Hon'ble Judge to be the vacation Judge from 7-1-1990 to 12-1-1990. It is specifically mentioned that the vacation Judges will sit in Court at 10-30 AM on 3-1-1990 and 9-1-1990 during the vacation to dispose of applications of urgent nature unless otherwise notified. Two of the Assistant Registrars were nominated to be the vacation officers during the said vacation. It is further mentioned that notice of any application of an urgent nature shall be given to the vacation officers before 1. 30 PM on Tuesday, the 2nd January and Monday, the 8th January, 1990. Neither of the two learned Judges who were nominated to be the vacation Judges were permitted to receive the Election petitions during the Sankranthi vacation, So also, neither of the Assistant Registrars who were nominated as the vacation officers during the said vacation were premitted to receive the Election petitions during the Sankranthi vacation. Only notice of applications of urgent nature were permitted to be given to the vacation officers', before 1.30 PM on 2-1-1990 and 8-1-1990. It therefore, follows that the notification referred to above dated 29-12-1989 did not permit either of the Hon'ble Judges or the Registry to receive the Election petitions during the Saukranthi vacation. As mentioned already, the notification says that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh will remain closed for the Sankranthi vacation from 2-1-1990 to 12-1-1990 (both days inclusive). The notification does not clarify that the Judges of the High Court alone would refrain from work between 2-1-1990 and 12-1-1990 and that the Registry would function normally during the said period of vacation. The notification does not even further specify that the vacation officers are authorised to receive any papers presented to them other than notices of applications of urgent nature. In the light of the specific wording contained in that notification. I hold that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh remained closed for the Sankranthi vacation from 2-1-1990 to 12-1-1990 which means that the Registry of the High Court also remained closed during the said period.
11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the High Court Registry was open during the vacation and received as many as 25 Election Petitions. It is not necessary in these applications to consider whether the Registry was competent to receive those 25 Election petitions during the vacation. That is not a relevant consideration for the disposal of these applications. What all is necessary to consider in these applications is whether in the light of the wording contained in the notification dated 29-12-1989 the High Court remained closed between 2-1-1990 to 12-1-1990 so as to enable the election petitioners to invoke Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, if so, the election petitioner in E.P. No. 25 of 1990 had time to file the Election petition even till 15-1-1990 and the fact that he filed the Election petition on 12-1-1990 and the Registry accepted it does not make any difference.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the wording contained in Section 10 of the General Clauses Act tried to draw a distinction between the closure of the "court" and "office" on the last day of limitation and. tried to submit that all has been closed is the High Court but not the office. There is no scops to draw such an inference from the notification. As I have mentioned already, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh remained closed for the Sankranthi vacation and the notification does not give room for any distinction being made between the court and the office which means the Registry of the High Court.
13. From the above discussion and following the decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Shankar Tripathi v. Shiv Harsh and Ors. (case (6) supra) I hold that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act is applicable to these four Election Petitions. Admittedly, 13th January, 1990 was a holiday as it happened to be second Saturday and 14th January, 1990 was also a holiday as it was Sunday. The High Court was re-opened on 15-1-1990 and the Election Petition Nos. 26, 31 and 33 of 1990 which were filed on 15-1-1990 are well within time and are not barred by limitation. I, therefore, over-rule the objection raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the above Election petitions are barred by Limitation.
14. The next objection raised in Election Application Nos. 257 and 282 of 1990 is with regard to the non-supply of documents which are referred to in the Election petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M. Karunanidhi v. H.V. Handa wherein it is held that the photograph referred to in paragraph 18 (b) of the Election petition is an integral part of the Election petition and that there was total non-compliance with the requirements of Sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the act by failure to serve the elected candidate with a copy of the photograph referred to in the election petition. The learned counsel for the applicants also placed reliance upon the latest decision of the Supreme Court in U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakararn, ( AIR 1990 SC 824) wherein it is held that the petition must set forth material facts constituting corrupt practice and when a document forms an integral part of an Election petition containing material facts or particulars of corrupt practice, then a copy of the Election petition without such a document is not complete and cannot be said to be a true copy of the Election petition. The learned Judges held that a copy of such document must be served on the respondents. Their Lordships however, held that if the contents of the document in question are pleaded in the Election petition, the document does not form an integral part of the Election petition and in such a case, a copy of the document need not be served on the respondent and that it will not be non-compliance with the provision of Section 81 (3) of the Act.
15. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relied upon three decisions. The first of them is the decision of P. A. Choudary, J, in Ch. Ramachandra Reddy v. Ch. Vamana Reddy ,( 1983 (2) ALT 68 (NRC)) wherein it is laid down that the words "shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition", occurring in Section 81 (3) of the Act should be understood as requiring the intended copies to accompany the election petition into the court and not beyond. K. Jayachamira Reddy, J, of Andhra Pradesh High Court (as he then was) held in A. Madan Mohan v. K. Chandra Sekhara Rao,( 1983 (2) An.W R. 449) that by reason of failure to supply copies of annexures and schedules to the Election petition by the Election petitioner to the respondent, the Election petition is not liable to be rejected when averments are made in the petition regarding the documents. The learned Judge observed that the court has to examine the particulars given in the petition as well as the contents of annexure and then see, whether in a given case, the document which is annexed to the Election petition is an integral part of the Election petition or is merely produced as evidence of the averments in the Election petition, in which the necessary particulars are there. The learned Judge opined that in the case all the seven documents were produced along with the Election petition as mere evidence of the averments in the Election petition and as regards the Schedules, the requisite number of copies have been filed in the Court, Under those circumstances, it is held that the Election petition was not liable to be dismissed. On a petition filed for special leave to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has confirmed the decision of K. Jayachandra Reddy, J, in A. Madan Mohan v. K. Chandrqsekhara, 11. Their Lordships while repelling the vehement contention of the petitioner therein that in the absence of serving the schedules and other documents referred to in the election petition on the respondent, the petition was liable to be rejected in limine under Section 86 of the Act, observed that such a consequence does not at all flow from the plain and simple requirement of Sections 81 and 82 of the Act. Their Lordships have accepted the findings of the High Court that when the Election petition was filed, it was accompanied by as many copies as were the respondents ; that the Election petition was duly verified and the copies thereof were accompanined by the necessary schedules containing the details of corrupt practices and that the schedules or annexures to the petition were also signed by the election petitioner. The complaint of the respondent in the Election petition served on him was not accompanied by the copies of the schedules and hence there was a clear breach of the provisions of Section 81 (3) of the Act. Their lordships held that all that was necessary was done in that case and there was no requirement that the documents of the schedules should also have been served on the respondent in the Election petition because if they were filed in the Court it was always open to the respondent in the Election petition to inspect them and find out the allegations made in the petition. While distinguishing the facts in M. Karunanidhi v. H.V. Handa (case (7 supra), their Lordships held that there was no requirement that-the documents or the schedules should have been served on the respondent and that it is sufficient if they were filed in the Court.
16. I shall first of all consider whether the documents referred to in the annexures in these two Election petitions form an integral part of the Election petitions or whether they were filed only as evidence in support of the allegations made in the Election petitions. First of all I shall deal with Election petition No. 26 of 1990. The petitioner while pleading that he is a resident of Avanigadda and he is an elector bearing No. 467 of Polling Station No. 80 of Avanigauda Assembly constitutuency, filed the voters list of the said Polling Station as Annexure-I. In paragraph 3 of the Election petition, the petitioner while narrating the number of votes polled to the various contestants in the election and also stating that as many as 1922 votes were rejected as invalid has stated that the first respondent got elected with a then majority of 167 votes. He filed Annexure-II which is the final result sheet. The fact of the first respondent in the Election petition being elected From No. 91 Avanigadda Assembly constituency is not in dispute. Hence, the final result sheet which is annexed to the the Election petition as Annexure-II also forms part of the evidence.
17. It is pleaded in Paragraph 4 of the Election petition that 263 persons were included in the voters' list pertaining to Polling Station-No. 104 though 22 out of them died long back and the remaining 241 persons migrated to different places long back and settled down permanently. The names of the persons with their Father's names, ages, the names of the villages where they have settled down and the names of the persons who died are shown in Annexure-III. The petitioner also filed the voter's list pertaining to Polling Station No. 104 as Annexure-IV. The voters list of Polling Station No. 104 which is filed as Annexure-IV cannot be suit to be an integral part of the Election petition, 1, therefore, hold that Annexures-I, II, and IV referred to in Election Petition No. 26 of 1990 are only in the nature of Documents filed by way of evidence to support the contention of the Election Petitioner but they do not form an integral part of the Election Petition. If at all, Annexure-III alone forms as integral part of the Elections Petition because it contains the names of 22 persons who are said to have died and the names of 241 persons residing at far off places-Without those details contained in Annexure-III, the information in the Election Petition cannot be said to be complete and I therefore, hold that Annexure-III alone in Election Petition No. 26 of 1990 can be considered as an integral part of the Election Petition.
18. In the Election Petition No. 25 of 1990, it is averred that the respondent in the Election Petition got pasted or displayed or exhibited throughout the constituence the poster showing Mr. N.T. Rama Rao, the supreme leader of the Telugu Desam Party, in the garb of Sri Krishna Bhagavan. In pargraph 3 of the Election Petition, the various places where the posters showing Mr. N.T. Rama Rao in the garb of Lord Krishna Bhagavan were displayed were set out in serial Nos. 1 to 11. While pleading that the District Election Authority, Vizianagaram sent notice dated 19-11-1989 to all the contesting candidates not to use religious symbols and figures for the purpose of appealing to voters, a copy of the said notice sent by the District Collector's Office, Vizianagaram is annexed as Annexure-I. The Photos of the posters bearing Serial Nos. 1 to 11 mentioned in Paragraph 3 of the Election Petition are filed as Annexures-II to XII. It is specified in Paragraph 5 of the Election Petition that in the Orginals of Annexures-II to V and IX to XII, a part of the Sloka from Bhagavad Geeta viz., "Dharma Samsthapanarthaya Sambhavami Yuge Yuge' was mentioned. After giving the translation of that portion of Sloka, it is further averred that the originals of Annexures II to V and IX to XII also contain certain words mentioned in the vernacular language of Telugu. Annexure-I is said to be copy of the notice sent by the District Collector's Office, Vizianagaram to all the contesting candidates calling upon them not religious symbols and figures for the purpose of appealing to the voters. It is a public document which can be summoned from the District Collector's Officer, Vizinagaram. The Election Petition contains the description of the photographs as those of Mr. N.T. Rama Rao in the garb of Sri Krishna Bhagavan and also the full text of the inscription contained on Annexures-II to V and IX to XII about a part of a Sloka from Bhagavad Geeta and the words written in Telugu Language calling upon the voters to defeat the Congress Party. It cannot therefore, be said that in the absence of the photographs, narration of the alleged corrupt practices is not cemplete.
19. In M. Karunanidhi v. H.V. Handa (case 7 supra), the Supreme Court held that the photographs of the banners which are said to have been annexed to the copies of the Election petition form an integral part of the Election petition because the allegation was that an expenditure of about Rs. 50,000/-, in erecting fancy banners throughout the constituency was incurred that there were about fifty such fancy banners and that the cost of each banner was not less than Rs. 1,000/-. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court observed that it is not possible to conceive of the dimensions of the large fancy banners unless one has a look at the photograph ; that the photograph filed with the Election Petition gives visual description of the fancy banner, the cost of which at a mere look would show that the expenditure in setting up each banner would be Rs. 1,000/-or more and that without being furnished with a copy of the Photograph, the avern-ments in paragraph 18 (b) of the Election Petition would be incomplete as regards the allegation of the corrupt practices committed by the elected candidate. It is under those circumstances that the learned counsel came to the conclusion that there was total and complete non-compliance of the provisions of Section 81 (3) of the Act and consequently the Election Petition was not presented in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The main reason that prompted the learned Judges to come to the conclusion that the photograph formed an integral part of the election petition was that the Photograph was found necessary to show whether for setting up such banners, it would cost Rs. 1,000/- or more for each. The fact in M. Karunanidhi v. H. V. Handa (case 7 supra) are quite distinguishable because in this case, the decision does not depend upon the size or the value of the banners. The banners containing Sri N.T. Rama Rao in the garb of Sri Krishna Bhagavan and words printed or written on the photographs are clearly set out in the election petition and as such, the filing of the photographs is only in the nature of evidence to support such a plea. I, therefore hold that the photographs filed in election petition No. 25 of 1990 as Annexures-II to XII cannot be considered as an integral part of the election petition. As I observed already Annexure-1 is a public document which is said to be communicated to all the contestants in the Election and as such, the elected candidate in the election must have had notice of the said communication. From the above discussion, I hold that Annexures-I to XII referred to in election petition No. 25 of 1990 do not form an integral part of the election petition.
20. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the annexures were served or not. The learned counsel for the applicant in Election Application No. 282 of 1990 relying upon the endorsement dated 19-2-1990 said to have been made by the first respondent on the notice of the election petition argued that what have been received by- him are only the copies of affidavit and the petition but not the annexures appended thereto. It is seen from the docket sheet entry that on 1-2-1990 that notices were directed to be issued to the respondents through court and by registered post acknowledgment due. The notice sent to the third respondent in the Election Petition No. 26 of 1990 was returned with an endorsement that the third respondent was not residing at Avanigadda but was residing in, Mangalagiri of Guntur District. The set of papeis returned unserved on the third respondent contain the copies of the affidavit filed by the Election petitioner under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 the Election Petition, the index for the annexures, annexures-I to IV and the notice sent by the Section Officer, O.S. Section of the High Court. When the Registrar of the High Court has senta complete set of the documents including Annexures-I to IV to the third respondent, it cannot be said that the Registry should have adopted a different course, while despatching the papers to the first respondent. None of the other respondents in the Election Petition who have been served with the copies of the Election Petition did complain about the non-receipt of Annexures-I to IV. Apart from the notice served through the District Court, Krishna, notice of the Election petition was also sent by Registered post with Acknowledgement Due to the first respondent in the Election Petition (applicant in Election Application No. 282 of 1990) and the postal acknowledgment contains his signature with the date of 9-2-1990. If really he was not served with the annexures along with the Election Petition, he would have complained to the Registry immediately about the non-receipt of the annexures along with the copy of the Election Petition. There is no material to show that the applicant in Election Application No. 282 of 1990 has adopted that course. At any rate, as I mentioned already, the Registry cannot be imputed with any motive for adopting a different course in serving the notice on the first respondent in the Election Petition (applicant in E.A. No. 282/1990). I, therefore' hold that excepting the self-serving endorsement made by the applicant in E.A. No. 282 of 1990 on the copy of the notice issued by the High Court through the District Court, Krishna, there is no other material to show that the applicant in E.A. No. 282 of 1990 was not served with the annexures.
21. Even assuming that the applicants in Election Application Nos. 282 and 257 of 1990 were not served with the annexures, the question that remains for consideration is, whether there is substantial compliance with Section 81 (3) of the Act or whether such non-supply of the annexure is fatal to the filing of the Election Petitions.
22. The learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the dictum of the Supreme Court in M. Karunanidhi v. H.V. Handa (Case 7 supra) holding that there was total non-compliance with the requirements of Sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act by virtue of the failure to serve the elected candidate with a copy of the photograph of the fancy banner adverted to in paragraph 18 (b) of the election petition therein. The Jearned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran (case 8 supra) which laid down that when a document for man integral part of the Election Petition and copy of such document is not furnished to the respondent along with the copy of the Election Petition the copy of the Election Petition will not be a true copy within the meaning of Section 81 (3) of the Act and as such, the court has to dismiss the Election Petition under Section 86 (1) for non-compliance with the requirements of Section 81 (3). Section 81 (3) of the Act lays down that every Election Petition shall be accompained by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. P.A. Choudary, J in Ch. Ramachandra Reddy v. Ch. Vamana Reddy (case 9 supra) has interpreted the words "shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition" occurring in Section 81 (3) of the Act as requiring the intended copies to accompany the Election Petition into court and not beyond. This view is affirmed by the Supreme Court in A. Madan Mohan v. K. Chandrasekhar (case 11 supra) where their lordships of the Supreme Court have repelled the contention that the schedules and other documents forming an integral part of the petition should have been served on the elected candidate before it can be said that the provisions of Sections 81 and 82 of the Act had been complied with and that in the absence of such a compliance, the petition was liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86 of the Act. Their Lordships have clarified that there was no requirement under Section 81 of the Act that the documents or the schedules should have been served on the elected candidate. The reasoning given by their Lordships was that if such documents or schedules were filed in the court, it was always open to the elected candidate to inspect them and to find out the allegations made in the petition.
23. Neither the provisions of the Act nor the Rules framed thereunder cast any duty on the election petitioner to serve the copy of the Election petition or the annexures referred to therein on the respondents in the Election petition. On the other hand, it is the duty of the Registry to serve the copies of the Election petition on the respondents. A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has confirmed in In Re. Presidential Election, (AIR 1974 SC 1682) the Latin Maxim "Lex Non Cogit ad impossibilia" which means that the law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform. It, therefore, follows that unless the Act or the Rules framed thereunder empower the election petitioner to serve the copy of the Election petition or the annexures thereto on the respondent, it cannot be said that the responsibility of serving the copy of the Election petition lies on the election petitioner. On the other hand, as observed already, the duty of serving the Election petition and the aunexurcs thereto vests in the Registry. By docket order dated 1-2-1990 in Election petition No. 26 of 1990, it is the Registry that was directed to issue notice to the respondents through court and by registered post with acknowledgment due. Similarly, in Election Petition No. 25 of 1990 by order dated 1-2-1990, it is the Registry that was directed to issue notice to the respondent through court and by registered post with acknowledgment due. By virtue of that direction, the Registry of the High Court has effected service on the respondents in Election petition No. 26 of 1990 and the sole respondent in Election petition No. 25 of 1990 through court as well as by registered post with acknowledgment due. In the absence of any power conferred upon the election petitioner to serve the copies of the Election petition or its annexures on the respondents in the Election petition, I hold that the maxim Lex non cogit ad impossibilia comes into operation and as such the law cannot compel the Election petitioners in Election Petition Nos. 25 and 26 of 1990 to do that which they cannot possibly perform. Consequently, it follows that it is not open to the court to condemn the election petitioners by reason of the failure to serve the copies of the Election petition and the annexures thereto on the respondents in the Election petitions and on that ground to reject the Election petitions in limine.
24. On a harmonious construction of the views taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M. Karunanidhi v. H.V. Handa (case 7 supra), A. Madan Mohan v. K. Chandresekhar (case 11 supra) and U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran (case 8 supra), what the Supreme Court considered a non-compliance with Section 81 (3) of the Act resulting in the rejection of the Election petition in limine under Section 86 of the Act is the failure on the part of the petitioner to furnish the High Court with the requisite number of copies of the Election petition and annexures thereto intended to be served or supplied to the respondent in the Election petition.
25. At any rate, the failure to supply or serve the annexures on the elected candidate in the Election petition Nos. 25 and 26/90 can be attributed, if at all, to the Registry of the High Court but not to the election petitioners themselves. If so, the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit applies to the facts of these cases. Thereby, the act of the court should not be allowed to prejudice any of the parties and no man should suffer because of the mistake committed, by the court. The Supreme Court has affirmed this principle in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1938 (2) SCC 602) holding that the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit-an act of the court could prejudice no man--is founded upon justice and good sense and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the Law. f he failure to supply the annexures along with the copy of the Election petition being attributable, if at all, to the laches of the Registry of the High Court but not to the election petitioners themselves, I hold that the act of the court should not injure the election petitioners. As observed by Ranganadha Misra, J. in A.R. Antuly v. R.S. Nayak (case 13 supra) to own-up the mistake by the court when judicial satisfaction is reached does not militate against its status or authority. The Registry of the court is a part and parcel of the court and the mistake committed by it is nothing but a mistake committed by the court itself. That being the case, the failure to serve the requisite material on the applicants in Election Application Nos. 257 and 282 of 1990 is certainly an act of the court and it shall prejudice no man including the election petitioners, in Election petition Nos. 25 and 26 of 1990.
26. For all the above reasons, I hold that the non-supply of the annexures to the applicants in Election Application Nos. 257 and 282/90 cannot be considered fatal to the filing of the Election petitions, because there is substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 81 (3) of the Act. I, accordingly, hold that the second objection raised in Election Application Nos. 257 and 282 of 1990 with regard to the non-supply of the annexures referred to in the Election petitions also has no substance and is liable to be rejected.
27. In the result, Election Application Nos. 257, 269, 277 and 282 of 1990 in Election Petition Nos. 25, 33, 31 and 26 of 1990 respectively are dismissed but in the circumstances of the cases without costs.