CHARANJIT SINGH Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL, NAWANSHAHR)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kartar Singh (respondent 2) filed an election petition on July 26, 1972, under Section 13 - B of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, for setting aside the election of the petitioner who had been declared elected as a Panch of Gram Panchayat, Garh Padhana, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Jullundur, polling for which took place on June 30, 1972. This petition was dismissed on October 19, 1972, by the prescribed authority with the following observation : -

(2.) Respondent 2 applied for a copy of that order on the same day, that is, October 19, 1972, and the copy was supplied to him on November 28, 1972. He made an application for restoration of the election petition under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure on December 13, 1972. An objection was taken by the petitioner that the application had been filed after the period of limitation prescribed under Article 122 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , had expired. Respondent 2 then filed an application for extending the period of limitation under Section 5 of the limitation Act. The reason stated was that he had to obtain a copy of the order in order to decide whether to apply for restoration of the election - petition to the prescribed authority or to file a revision petition in the High Court for getting the order set aside. He, therefore, prayed that he should be allowed the time spent in obtaining the copy as a sufficient cause. Nothing was stated why he was not able to file the application for restoration between November 28, 1972 and December 13, 1972, after having obtained the certified copy. The period of limitation prescribed under Article 122 of the Limitation Act expired on November 18, 1972, and if respondent 2 wanted the extension of time under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, he had to explain each day's delay after November 18, 1972. He successfully explained the delay upto November 28, 1972, but stated nothing about the period thereafter. The learned prescribed authority has not dealt with this matter as to whether there was sufficient cause for respondent 2 in filing the application for restoration after November 28, 1972, and before December 13, 1972. All that he has stated in his order is : -

(3.) It must be remembered that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is revisional in character and it is exercised to keep the inferior Tribunals within the bounds of law as regards the exercise of their jurisdiction. It has been Ruled in various authorities that if the period of limitation expires, each day's delay has to be explained. The matter was examined by a Full Bench of this Court in Gurdial Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1967 CurLJ 602. As I have stated above, no reason was stated by the petitioner why he was unable to approach the Court between November 28 and December 13, 1972, even after obtaining the certified copy of the order. It is the admitted case of the parties that the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act do not apply, and the period spent in obtaining the certified copy could not be allowed under that provision. The time could be extended only under Section 5 after recording a finding that there was sufficient cause for the delay. No such finding has been recorded by the prescribed authority. On this ground, the judgment of the Patna High Court in Imperial Tobacco Company of India Ltd. v. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patna, 1967 AIR(Pat) 153and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee and others, 1964 AIR(SC) 1336are distinguishable. The application filed by respondent 2 for restoration was clearly barred by time and, without extending the period of limitation in accordance with law, the prescribed authority restored it 'in the interest of justice' which was not permissible. The election - petition could be restored only after recording a finding that the election - petitioner was prevented from making that application for a sufficient cause before December 13, 1972, after the period of limitation had expired on November 18, 1972. The prescribed authority acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order which is liable to be quashed. I accordingly accept this revision petition and quash the order. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Petition accepted.