KOUR SINGH Vs. PARKASH SINGH BHATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for condonation of delay has been filed stating that respondent No. 1 who has been elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly, 2002 from 90 Bulluana (SC) Assembly Constituency in the elections held on 13.2.2002 was disqualified from being so elected and there was wrongful acceptance of his nomination. It is further stated that the petitioners were not aware of the disqualification which came to their notice from Newspaper report dated 17.4.2002.

(2.) The election petition has been filed on 1.5.2002. The limitation for filing election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the 1951 Act) is 45 days from the date of election. The result of election was declared on 24.2.2002 and, therefore, the last date for filing the election petition would be 10.4.2002. It is well settled that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the 1963 Act) does not apply to an election petition under the provisions of the 1951 Act. Reference is made to decision of the Supreme Court in Lachhman Dass Arora v. Ganeshi Lal & Ors., 1999 4 RCR(Civ) 138 , which in turn refers to an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, 1974 AIR(SC) 480, wherein, interpreting Section 29(2) of the 1963 Act it was held that even where the special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the 1963 Act by an express reference it would nonetheless be open to the Court to examine whether and to what extent the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation. It was concluded that Section 5 of the 1963 Act will not apply to an election petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a Supreme Court judgment in Shaik Saidulu alias Saida v. Chukka Yesu Ratnam & Ors., 2002 AIR(SC) 749. The said judgment was rendered by referring to Section 671 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, whereby Section 5 of the Limitation Act was made specifically applicable. The said judgment is thus, clearly distinguishable. Moreover, in view of earlier judgments of the three Hon'ble Judges in Lachhman Dass Arora's case and Hukumdev Narain Yadav's case , judgment in Shaik Saidulu's case cannot be taken to have laid down a law to the contrary.