Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Ishrath Banu, a Zilla Panchayat Member from Chamaraja Nagar, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The petition sought to quash the order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kollegala, in Election Petition No.02/2017. The impugned order allowed an interlocutory application filed by the 5th respondent seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and consequently rejected the election petition. The petitioner contended that the Limitation Act has no application to election petitions. The respondents included the Returning Officer, the Thasildar, and private respondents. The court examined the issue of whether the Limitation Act applies to election petitions. The High Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to election petitions as the period of limitation for filing an election petition is prescribed under Section 21(3) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, which is a special law. The court noted that the election petition must be filed within the period prescribed by the special statute and delay cannot be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the trial court to proceed with the election petition in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Limitation Act - Applicability to Election Petitions - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 21(3) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - The court considered whether the Limitation Act applies to election petitions. Held that the Limitation Act has no application to election petitions as the period of limitation for filing an election petition is prescribed under Section 21(3) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, which is a special law, and the provisions of the Limitation Act are excluded. The court quashed the order allowing condonation of delay. (Paras 1-10) B) Election Law - Condonation of Delay - Election Petition - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The court held that an election petition must be filed within the period prescribed by the special statute, and delay cannot be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The impugned order allowing the application for condonation of delay was set aside. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to election petitions filed under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, and whether the delay in filing an election petition can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kollegala in Election Petition No.02/2017 is quashed. The trial court is directed to proceed with the election petition in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963 does not apply to election petitions
- Election petition must be filed within prescribed period under Section 21(3) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act
- 1993
- Condonation of delay not permissible for election petitions
- Writ of certiorari lies against interlocutory order allowing condonation of delay
