P NARANAPPA Vs. A SHANKER ALVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under S.81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (Act 43 of 1950), hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been presented by an elector of 132 Puttur Assembly Constituency of South Kanara District. He has challenged the election of the first respondent, who is the returned candidate, on the ground that corrupt practices have been committed and pursuant to the provisions of S.100(1) (b) (d) (ii) (Hi) & (iv) of the Act. Respondents 2 to 5 are all candidates, who had unsuccessfully contested the election. The first respondent, A Shanker Alva, is the successful candidate. On his behalf, Sri B. K. Ramachandra Rao and Sri M. Gopalakrishna Shetty, learned Counsel, have entered appearance. On behalf of the second respondent, Sri K. Shivashankar Bhat, learned Counsel, has filed power, Respondents 3 to 5 are unrepresented and therefore, treated ex-parte.

(2.) It is unnecessary for the disposal of this petition to set out the details regarding the corrupt practices alleged to have been indulged in by the first respondent or his election agents. The relief sought for in the petition is that the election of the first respondent for Puttur Assembly Constituency No.132 should be held to be illegal and void and the election of the second respondent, who is next highest to the successful candidate in the matter of votes secured, be declared elected. According to the petitioner, the result of the election were declared in the early hours of the morning of 12-3-1972. It may here be mentioned that according to the first respondent, such results were declared on 11-3- 1972 itself. This dispute regarding the date of election is of no materiality, in the context of the issue arising in the case relative to delay in preferring the petition and the non-compliance with the requirement in that behalf in Section 81 of the Act.

(3.) The present petition has been filed on 28-4-1972. Even if the date of declaration of the results of the election is assumed to be 12-3-1972, as alleged on behalf of the petitioner, the petition prima facie does not comply with the provisions of S.81 of the Act, which clearly enjoins that an election petition shall be presented within 45 days from the data of election of the returned candidate. What constitutes the date of election is set out in S.67A of the Act, according to which, it is the date on which a candidate is declared by the Returning Officer under the provisions of S.53 or S.66, to be elected to a House of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State. Presumably with a view to get over this difficulty, the petitioner has filed an application I.A. No.1, under S.5 of the Indian Limitation Act read with S.151 CPC., praying for the condonation of delay of two days in filing the Election Petition. In the body of the affidavit filed in support of such application, the petitioner has inter alia contended that there has been no delay in the presentation of the petition and in any event, there was sufficient cause for such delay. This petition is opposed on behalf of the first respondent, the returned candidate, one of the grounds alleged in the counter-affidavit being that S.5 of the Limitation Act would not at all be applicable to an election petition. The allegations in the Election Petition relating to corrupt practices, however, have not been traversed. Hence, the matter was taken up for consideration on the question whether the petitioner would be entitled to the relief of condonation of delay concerned in the presentation of the petition.