Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The writ petition was placed before a learned single Judge of this Court and the question was considered. On an exhaustive consideration of the matter, the learned single Judge has in his order of reference observed that, in view of the Scheme of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act 2006 (hereinafter referred to as `the Bihar Act'), read with the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules 2006 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules), the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `1963 Act') are applicable and, therefore, the provision for condonation of delay is available with respect to the proceedings under the Bihar Act. The learned single Judge has further observed that he, therefore, disagrees with the view taken by learned single Judges of this Court in the case of Birendra Kumar v. State Election Commission [2004(3) PLJR 313], and Shambhu Lal v State of Bihar [2007(2) PLJR 698. It has been held in these two judgments that the provisions of 1963 Act are inapplicable to the proceedings under the Bihar Act and, therefore, there is no provision for condonation of delay for the proceedings under the Bihar Act. In view of such disagreement, the learned single Judge has referred the issue for the decision of a Division Bench to decide the correctness of the two opposite views.

(a) Birendra Kumar v State Election Commission [2004(3) PLJR 313] This judgment was rendered with respect to the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act 1993.

(b) Shambhu Lal v. State of Bihar [2007(2) PLJR 698] This judgment was with respect to the provisions of the Bihar Act.

5. Learned Government Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 has supported the writ petition, and submits that the Bihar Act is a complete Code by itself, and there is absence of provision for extension of time in presenting an election petition. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [2010 AIR SCW 2680], which dealt with similar provisions in the Electricity Act 2003.

He has also submitted that this portion is absent in the 4th edition. 6.1) He next submits that there is no corresponding provision of Section 86(1) of 1951 Act in the Bihar Act. The relevant provisions in the two enactments are differently couched. Therefore, Hukumdev Narain Yadav's case (supra) is inapplicable to the present situation. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Chaudhary v Alliance Agro Industries (P) Ltd. [1991(1) PLJR (SC) 3]. He also submits that wisdom lies in extending the jurisdiction so that all grievances of aggrieved parties are adjudicated, and no one is left remedyless. He lastly submits that non-applicability of the provisions of section 5 of 1963 Act will affect the jurisdiction of the Court, and such a situation has to be avoided in the interest of justice. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh [AIR 1954 SC 210].