Y KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. M SIVANNAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four applications are heard and are being disposed of together as common questions arise for consideration.

(2.) In Election application Nos 277/ 1990 and 269/1990 in Election petition Nos 31 and 33 of 1990 respectively, the maintainability of Election petition Nos. 31 and 33 of 1990 is challenged on the ground of limitation. In Election Application Nos. 257/1990 and 282/1900 in Election Petition nos. 25 and 26/1990 respectively, apart from the question of limitation the petitioners urged the non- supply of documents which from an integral part of the Elections at an additional ground. The petitioners ia all these Election Application pray that the Election petitions should be dismissed in limini without the necessity of recording evidence and deciding the Election petitions on merits.

(3.) The elections for the Andhra pradesh Legislative Assembly were held all over the State on 22-11-1989. It is represented that in Election petition No. 26/ 1990. the result of the elected candidate was declared on 26-11-1989 whereas the result of the elected candidates was declared in Election Petition Nos 25, 31, and 33 of 1990 on 27-11-1989. Ttte limitation for filing the Election petition is 45 days from the date of declaration of the result of tnc election. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the last date for filing Election petition No. 26/1990 is 10-1-1990 whereas the last date for filing election petition Nos 25, 31 and 33/1990 is 11-1-1990 that Election Petition No. 25/90 was filed on 12-1-90 that the other Election petitions were not filed on or before the last date of limitation but were filed on 15-1-1990 which happened to be the re- opining day for the High Court after San- kranti vacation; that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') being a complete code with regard to the determination of disputes arising out of the elections, the Election petitions will have to be filed within 45 days from the date of declaration of the result of the Election; that Section 5 of the limitation Act has no application to Election Petitions; that though the Judges did not function daring the Sankrambi vacation, the Registry of the High Court was working upto 12-1-1990; that the filitg of the Election petitions within 45 days from the date of the declaration of the result is mandatory and that since the Election petition Nos. 25, 26, 31 and 33 of 1990 were filed beyond 45 days from the date of the declaration of the result of the election, the election petition will bave to be diumned in limini. The learned counsel further argued that there is no prohibition for the registry of the High Court to receive the election Petitions filed during the Sankran- thi Vacation and as such, the election petitioners cannot take advantage of the San- krantbi vacation and file the Election petitions on 15-11990. Inasmuch as the Election petitions mere filed beyond the period of 45 days fiom the date ol the declaration of the result of the election, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the election petitions are barred by time.