LACHHMAN DAS ARORA Vs. GANESHI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The appellant herein is aggrieved by the dismissal of his election petition by the learned Election Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the preliminary issue of limitation without trial.

(2.) The first respondent was declared elected to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from Sirsa Assembly Constituency on 10-5-1996. The appellant, defeated candidate, called in question his election on various grounds by presenting an election petition on 1-7-1996 at 3.00 p.m. in the Registry of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The election petition was resisted and a preliminary objection was raised by respondent No. 1 to the effect that the election petition had not been filed within the period of 45 days as prescribed by S. 8(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter "the Act") and was as such liable to be dismissed. The learned Election Judge on the basis of the preliminary objection, raised the following issue:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant, in challenging the impugned judgment of the High Court, submitted that since the High Court was closed for summer vacations between June 1 and June 30, 1996 (both days inclusive) the election petition presented in the Registry on the reopening day of the High Court, on July 1, 1996, was within the period of limitation. Reliance in this behalf was placed on S. 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and upon the judgments of this Court in Hari Shanker Tripathi v. Shiv Harsh (1976) 1 SCC 897 and Simhadri Satya Narayana Rao v. M. Budda Prasad (1994) 1 Suppl. SCC 449, to urge that where the High Court is closed on account of vacations, presentation of an election petition on the next day following the vacations, would render the election petition to have been filed during the prescribed period, if that period fell during the vacations.