Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Vardhineedi Sree Devi vs Chegondi Ramalakshmi And Ors. on 4 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(5)ALD720, AIR 2007 (NOC) 2568 (A. P.)
ORDER C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. First respondent and the revision petitioner contested an election to the post of MPTC of Doddipatla village of Elamanchili Mandal, for which the election took place on 02.07.2006 and counting was held on 04.07.2006. The results were declared on the same day and the revision petitioner was declared elected. Questioning the election of the revision petitioner, first respondent filed election petition with a delay of 47 days and filed a petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the election petition. In spite of opposition by the revision petitioner, the election Tribunal by order under revision directed the parties to adduce evidence with regard to the question whether the delay can be condoned or not. Questioning the same, the revision petitioner, who is the successful candidate in the election, filed the revision petition.
2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that inasmuch as the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act is a special law and the election to the post of MPTC can be questioned under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (the Rules) by filing an election petition within thirty days from the date of declaration of the result of the election, the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act have no application and so, whatever may be the ground on which the delay had occurred, question of condonation of delay does not arise and so, the Tribunal erred in directing the parties to adduce evidence. He relied on Anwari Basavaraj Patil v. Siddaramaiah , The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Parson Tools and Plants Kanpur , Hukumdevg Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra , Lalchhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal , and Kpragnapuram Indira v. Akkinapally Parvathamma 2004 (2) An.W.R. 269 (A.P.) in support of his contention. It is his contention that the Tribunal was in error in assuming that the ratio in Mrs. Ragiboyina Bhulakshmi v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj Department 2002 (4) ALT 496 (D.B.) lays down that the provisions of Limitation Act would apply to election petitions filed under the provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, as, in that case, the person who lost in the election, instead of filing an election petition before the Tribunal, filed a writ petition in the High Court and a Division Bench of this Court holding that the writ petition is not maintainable, directed the writ petitioner to approach the Tribunal for appropriate relief and so, the said decision has no application to the facts of the case.
3. Learned Counsel for the first respondent contended that since the first respondent could not file a petition due to ill-health, whether the delay can be condoned or not can be decided after the parties adduce their evidence, and since the Tribunal did not commit any error in directing the parties to adduce evidence, the revision petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order under revision, and in view of the ratio in Ragiboyina Bhulakshmis case , it is easy to see that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to election petitions filed under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act also.
4. When it is the contention of the revision petitioner that the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act do not apply to election petitions filed under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, the court can decide the question whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to election petitions filed under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act or not before directing the parties to adduce evidence, because the question of adducing evidence arises only if the petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act is maintainable in the election petitions filed under the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder.
5. In Kpragnapuram Indira's case 2004 (2) An.W.R. 269 (A.P.) (supra), the ratio is that the election petition has to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Rule-3 of the Rules. Question relating to applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act was not considered by the learned Judge in that case.
6. In Lalchhman Das Arora's case (1999) 8 SCC 532 (supra), Hukumdevg Narain Yadav's case AIR 1974 SC 480 (supra) and Anwari Basavaraj Patifs case AIR 1994 SC 512 (supra), the Apex Court held that the courts cannot extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds particularly in the matter of election petitions. No doubt, the election petitions in those cases were filed under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act. But, the ratio in those cases that the petition questioning the election has to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed, and question of extension of period of limitation does not arise, applies on all fours to election petitions filed under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act also, because a candidate declared elected in an election cannot be kept under suspense during the entire tenure to the elected post, because if Section 5 of Limitation Act is held to apply to election petitions, it would tantamount in holding that the election of the elected candidate would be subject to scrutiny by court i.e. Election Tribunal at any time during his tenure, which obviously is not the intention of the law makers. Just like limitation for filing a suit cannot be extended by invoking Section 5 of Limitation Act, period of limitation to file an election petition also cannot be extended by taking the aid of Section 5 of Limitation Act.
7. In The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Parson Tools and Plants's case (supra), the Apex Court while considering the question whether the provisions of Sections 5 and 14(2) of Limitation Act can be applied to the proceedings under the U.P. Sales Tax Act held that it is the duty of the Court to give effect to the intention of the statute without engrafting, adding or implying anything which is not congenial to or consistent with such expressed intent of the law-giver.
8. Since the election law is also a special law, the person who won in the election cannot be harassed by the person who lost in the election by coming to Court after a period later than the period specified by the statute or the Rules made thereunder. Since the language used in Rule 3 of the Rules is mandatory, and as it mandates that the election petition "shall be filed" within a period of 'thirty days from the date of declaration of the elections', question of extending the period of limitation on any ground whatsoever does not arise. So, the Tribunal constituted under the Act and Rules made thereunder has no jurisdiction to extend the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 3 of the Rules by invoking Section 5 of Limitation Act.
9. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal was in error in observing that the Court has power to decide the question relating to condonation of delay in view of the ratio in Mrs. Ragiboyina Bhulakshrris case (supra). From a reading of the judgment, it is seen that the writ petitioner therein had already filed an election petition because in para-8 of the said judgment, it is stated that "the election petition is pending. It appears the appellant has not filed her counter-affidavit in the election petition. It is open to the appellant herein to file her counter-affidavit in the election petition and contest the matter in accordance with law."
10. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was in error in directing the parties to adduce evidence in the petition filed for condonation of delay because the petition itself is not maintainable.
11. Therefore, the revision is allowed and the I.A. No. 1095 of 2006 in unnumbered election petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this revision.