LACHMAN DAS ARORA Vs. GANESHI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Election to the 8th Haryana Legislative Assembly was notified calling upon various constituencies of Haryana Legislative Assembly, including Sirsa (82-Legislative Assembly Constituency) to elect its representatives. The last date for filing nomination papers was notified as 3.4.1996. The date of poll was notified as 27.4.1996. Counting was to commence on 8.5.1996. After withdrawal of nomination papers within the time allowed, a total of 76 candidates remained in the field as the contesting candidates in respect of Sirsa (82-Legislative Assembly Constituency). The counting of votes started on 8.5.1996 and continued for two days. Result was ultimately declared by the Returning Officer on 10.5.1996 at about 5 P.M. Respondent No. 1, the returned candidate polled 35,419 votes whereas the election petitioner Lachman Dass Arora polled 31,599 votes. Gopi Chand another candidate polled 22,848 votes and Lekh Raj still another candidate polled 2045 votes whereas the other candidates polled less than 100 votes. The Returning Officer declared Ganeshi Lal, respondent No. 1 as returned candidate by a margin of 3820 votes on 10.5.1996. This undisputedly is the date of election of the returned candidate for the purpose of Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) Section 81 of the Act provides that election petition calling in question any election may be presented by any candidate of such election within 45 days from the date of election i.e. 10.5.1996 for the purpose of filing election petition, admittedly, expired on 25.6.1996 and the election petition was presented by the petitioner through his Advocate Shri Sanjiv Walia, at 3.50 P.M. on 1.7.1996, in the registry of this Court. The election petition was thus filed after the expiry of period of limitation.

(3.) In response to notice of the election petition, only Ganeshi Lal the returned candidate filed written statement. A preliminary objection was raised that the election petition was not instituted within the prescribed period of limitation as provided in Section 81(1) of the Act and was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It was highlighted that the High Court vide its notification No. 313/Genl.XVII.3, dated 27.11.1995 specifically notified for general information that the Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh will be closed for Civil business except for hearing Election Petitions or any other matter arising out of the Representation of People Act, 1951, on account of long vacations in the year 1996 from June 1 to June 30, 1996 (both days inclusive). The contesting respondent also raised various other pleas and controverted the allegations made in the election petition.