RAMNANDAN RAI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE SITAMARHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application arises out of an election petition which was filed by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 challenging the election of the petitioner as the Mukhiya of Chak Rajopatti Gram Panchayat.

(2.) The petitioner was declared elected as the Mukhiya of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat on 1-6-1978. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed the election petition in question on 1-7-1978 before the Panchayat Officer as on that day the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal constituted for deciding such election disputes was on leave. On 3-7-1978 that election petition was presented before the Election Tribunal, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). It is not in dispute that the period of thirty days prescribed under Rule 72 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Election Rules') expired on 1-7-1978. As on that date the election petition was not filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal, by its order dated 5-8-1978, dismissed the said election petition as time barred. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 being aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed an appeal before the District Judge, Sitamarhi, who was the appellate authority, against the decision of the Tribunal as provided by Rule 70 of the Election Rules. Learned District Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the election petition in question should not have been dismissed because on the last day of the limitation prescribed for filing such petition the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was on leave, and, as such, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 had no option but to present that election petition on 3-7-1978. In his view, the delay, if any, will be deemed to have been condoned under Sec. 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Limitation Act'). Copies of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the learned District Judge have been annexed to the writ application and marked as Annexures 1 and 2, respectively. On behalf of the petitioner the legality of the order passed by the District Judge has been questioned before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that under the provision of the Election Rules there is no power in Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the election petition, and once an election petition is not filed within the period prescribed by Rule 72 (2), the Tribunal has no option but to dismiss such election petition in limine. The relevant portions of Rule 72 of the Election Rules are as follows:--