Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against the judgment dated 26.4.1993 of the Bombay High Court in Election Petition No. 24 of 1990 declaring the election of Manohar Joshi to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from 32 Dadar Constituency void on the ground under Section 100(1)(b). The election was held on 27.2.1990 and Manohar Joshi, the candidate of the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance, secured 47,737 votes against Bhaurao Patil of the Congress (I) Party who secured 24,354 votes; Joshi was declared duly elected on 1.3.1990. The original election petitioner Bhaurao Patil, now dead, alleged commission of corrupt practices under sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Act based on speeches on 24.2.1990 at Shivaji Park by the returned candidate and leaders of the alliance, namely Bal Thackeray, Chhagan Bhujbal and Pramod Nawalkar, and certain video cassettes played during the election campaign. The High Court rejected the contention that the election petition was time-barred and held that the corrupt practices alleged were proved, consequently allowing the election petition and declaring the election void. In the Supreme Court, Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned counsel for the appellant, raised preliminary objections regarding limitation and copies. He argued that the election petition should have been dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act for non-compliance of sub-section (1) of Section 81 because it was not presented within the prescribed limitation; the last date for filing was 14.4.1990 but the petition was actually presented on 16.4.1990 after two holidays. He also contended that sub-section (3) of Section 81 must be read with Section 83, and therefore the copy of the election petition must be a copy of a petition satisfying the requirement of Section 83(1). Shri Ashok Desai, learned counsel for the respondents, argued that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applied to election petitions and the petitioner was entitled as of right to present the election petition on the next day when the court opened after holidays, relying on the legal maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia. The Court examined the legislative history of the limitation prescribed by sub-section (1) of Section 81 and referred to earlier decisions including H.H. Raja Harinder Singh vs. S. Karnail Singh, Hukumdev Narain Yadav vs. Lalit Narain Mishra, Hari Shankar Tripathi vs. Shiv Narayana Rao and Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., observing that it is settled that the litigant has a right to avail limitation up to the last day. The extracted text does not include the final decision of the Supreme Court on the appeal.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Limitation for Election Petitions - Applicability of Section 10, General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 81(1) and 86 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The election petition was presented on 16.4.1990 after the last prescribed day 14.4.1990 fell on a holiday when the High Court and its office were closed on 14.4.1990 and 15.4.1990; appellant contended that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is a self-contained code and Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable, while respondent relied on Section 10 of General Clauses Act, 1897 and the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia; the Court examined legislative history and precedents holding that Section 10 applies to election petitions and observed that a litigant has a right to avail limitation up to the last day (Paras Not mentioned). B) Election Law - Contents and Copies of Election Petition - Compliance with Section 81(3) read with Section 83(1) - Sections 81(3), 83(1) and 86 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Appellant argued that sub-section (3) of Section 81 must be read with Section 83 and therefore the copy of the election petition must be a true copy of a petition satisfying the requirements of Section 83(1); non-compliance would attract dismissal under Section 86(1); the Court was considering this threshold objection (Paras Not mentioned). C) Election Law - Corrupt Practices - Speeches and Video Cassettes - Sections 123(3) and (3A) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The election petition alleged corrupt practices based on speeches dated 24.2.1990 at Shivaji Park by the returned candidate and leaders of the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance, and video cassettes during election campaign; the High Court held corrupt practices proved and declared the election void under Section 100(1)(b); the appeal challenged this finding on merits (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether election petition presented on 16.4.1990 after the prescribed 45-day limitation expired on 14.4.1990 was time-barred due to court holidays; whether Section 10 of General Clauses Act, 1897 applied to extend limitation; whether non-compliance of Section 81(3) read with Section 83 regarding copies of election petition required dismissal under Section 86; whether alleged corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and (3A) were proved
Final Decision
Not mentioned from provided text
Law Points
- Section 10 of General Clauses Act
- 1897 applies to computation of limitation for presentation of election petitions under Section 81(1) of Representation of the People Act
- 1951 when court closed on last day
- Limitation Act
- 1963 not applicable to election petitions
- copy of election petition must satisfy Section 83(1) of Representation of the People Act
- 1951 when read with Section 81(3)
- non-compliance of Section 81 or Section 83 attracts dismissal under Section 86 of Representation of the People Act
- 1951
