SHYAM LAL BANSAL Vs. CHANDER MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1, and respondent No. 1, were candidates for election to 1-Kalka Assembly Constituency in the general elections held for the Haryana Legislative Assembly in April, 1996. The votes were polled on 27.4.1996 and after completion of counting, respondent No. 1 was declared elected on 9.5.1996 by margin of 20629 votes (petitioner No. 1 is shown to have polled 34300 votes as against 54929 polled by respondent No. 1).

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1, and petitioner No. 2 who claims to be an elector of 1- Kalka Legislative Assembly jointly presented this petition on 1.7.1996 i.e. after more than 45 days of the declaration of result. After scrutiny of the petition, registry of the High Court reported the following defects :-

(3.) MR . Bali argued that in no manner the delay has been caused in the filing of the election petition for the fact that the courts were closed in the month of June, 1996 and soon after the courts re-opened, it was filed on 1.7.1996 itself. In this regard he referred to 1994 Supplementary (1) Supreme Court Cases 441 and contended that their Lordships have held that the election petition is maintainable once the time of limitation has expired during the vacations and the petition has been filed soon after the court re-opened.