Allahabad High Court
Akhilesh (Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi) vs Shri Ramesh Chand on 4 August, 2023
Author: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157150 Court No. - 42 Case :- ELECTION PETITION No. - 2 of 2023 Petitioner :- Akhilesh (Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi) Respondent :- Shri Ramesh Chand Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
1. Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi in person on Delay Condonation Application No.2 of 2023 filed along with this election petition.
2. As per report of the stamp reporter, this election petition has been filed beyond time by 1458 days.
3. As per Section 81 of The Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act, 1951'), election petition has to be presented within 45 days.
4. In Election Petition No.1 of 2014 (Mohan Lal And Another vs. State Of U.P. through Secretary to The Chairman And 7 Others) decided on 18.04.2014 and in Election Petition No.2 of 2021 (Ram Nath Priyadarshi Suman vs. The Chief Election Commissioner Of India And 3 Others) decided on 23.07.2021, it has been held that an election petition presented beyond the period of limitation provided under Section 81 of The Act, 1951, is a petition which does not comply with the statutory provisions of Section 81 of The Act, 1951 and, consequently, it is liable to be dismissed. It has also been held that the provisions of the Limitation Act shall not apply to an election petition.
5. The judgement in the Election Petition No.1 of 2014 (Mohan Lal And Another vs. State Of U.P. through Secretary to The Chairman And 7 Others) decided on 18.04.2014 is reproduced below:
"The petition was adjourned on the last date.
No one appears for the petitioners even today even though the name of the counsel is printed in the cause list.
I have perused the petition.
This is an election petition filed by two petitioners for quashing the order dated 16.2.2013 declaring the election of Smt. Laxmi Gautam, respondent No.4 from the 31 Legislative Assembly (Reserve Constituency) Chandausi, U.P. The election petition was presented on 13.2.2014.
The petition as per the office report dated 23.1.2014 is beyond time by 1 year 278 days. There is no objection against the said report.
Section 81 of the Act provides for presenting an election petition on the pecified grounds within forty five days of the election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate and the dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates.
The petitioners in paragraph 6 of the petition states the election result was declared on 6.3.2012 and the respondent No.4 (wrongly mentioned as respondent No.5) was placed at serial No.1 meaning to have been declared elected.
The petition is therefore clearly beyond time as reported.
An election petition is not an action in common law or in equity but under a statute which provides that no election to the Parliament or to any State Legislature can be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Therefore, the rule of statutory limitation applies to election petitions.
The election petition which is in the nature of original proceedings has to be presented strictly within the limitation contained in the Act. There is no provision in the Act to condone the delay in its filing. The Act is a complete and a self contained code which does not admit introduction of the principles or the provisions of law contained in the Limitation Act and, therefore, the limitation Act is not applicable to the election petitions vide K. Venkereswara Rao and another Vs. Bekkam Narsimha Reddi and others AIR 1969 SC 872.
In Hukumdev Narain Yadav Vs. Lalit Narain Misra AIR 1974 SC 480 it has been held that even if the special law i.e. Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 does not specifically exclude the provisions of Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act nonetheless as the Act is a complete code in itself the provisions of the Limitation Act must be held to be necessarily excluded. Therefore, as the Limitation Act is not applicable to the election petitions under the Act, the delay in presentation of election petition is not liable to be condoned.
The Court otherwise also has no power to condone any delay in the filing of the election petition.
Section 86(1) of the Representatives of Peoples Act, 1951 provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition for non compliance of provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117 and the order dismissing the election petition under this sub-section shall be deemed to be an order made under clause (1) of Section 98 of the Act which is liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act.
In view of the above, as the election petition has been presented beyond the period of limitation provided under Section 81 of the Act, it is a petition which does not comply with the statutory provision of Section 81 of the Act.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed summarily under Section 86 of the Act for non compliance of provisions of Section 81 of the Act."
6. The other judgement in the Election Petition No.2 of 2021 (Ram Nath Priyadarshi Suman vs. The Chief Election Commissioner Of India And 3 Others) decided on 23.07.2021 is reproduced below:
"Shri Vidya Sagar, Advocate has filed his appearance on behalf of the petitioner in this election petition. The same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Tarun Agrawal, who appears for the State Election Commission.
This is an election petition filed by two petitioner for quashing the order dated 25.05.2019 declaring Smt. Keshari Devi Patel, respondent No.4 as elected from the Phoolpur Lok Sabha Constituency No. 51, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh.
The election petition was presented on 25.03.2021.
The petition as per the office report dated 23.1.2014 is beyond time by 626 days. There is no objection against the said report.
The petition is therefore clearly beyond time as reported.
The election petition which is in the nature of original proceedings has to be presented strictly within the limitation contained in the Act. There is no provision in the Act to condone the delay in its filing. The Act is a complete and a self contained code which does not admit introduction of the principles or the provisions of law contained in the Limitation Act and, therefore, the limitation Act is not applicable to the election petitions vide K. Venkereswara Rao and another Vs. Bekkam Narsimha Reddi & others AIR 1969 SC 872.
In Hukumdev Narain Yadav Vs. Lalit Narain Misra AIR 1974 SC 480 it has been held that even if the special law i.e. Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 does not specifically exclude the provisions of Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act nonetheless as the Act is a complete code in itself the provisions of the Limitation Act must be held to be necessarily excluded. Therefore, as the Limitation Act is not applicable to the election petitions under the Act, the delay in presentation of election petition is not liable to be condoned.
In view of the above, as the election petition has been presented beyond the period of limitation provided under Section 81 of the Act, it is a petition which does not comply with the statutory provision of Section 81 of the Act.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed summarily under Section 86 of the Act for non compliance of provisions of Section 81 of the Act."
7. In view of the aforequoted judgements of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal And Another (supra) and Ram Nath Priyadarshi Suman (supra), this election petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.8.2023 Ankit.