PETITIONER:
SIMHADRI SATYA NARAYANA RAO
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M. BUDDA PRASAD AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT21/12/1990
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)
CITATION:
1990 SCR Supl. (3) 701 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 449
1990 SCALE (2)1302
ACT:
Election Law: Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Section 81 and 86–Election petition–Filing on the re-
opening day of the High Court after vacation–Statutory
period of 45 days over during the vacation–Whether liable
to be dismissed under section 86 of the Act?
Notification dated 29. 12. 1989 issued by the High Court
notifying the Sankranthi vacation–Its interpretation and
scope–No distinction can be made between the court and the
office (Registry)–Manner and extent of functioning during
the vacation–Whether in the light of the wording of the
notification, the High Court remained closed between 2.1.
1990 and 12.1.1990 so as to enable the election petitioners
to invoke Section 10 of the General Clauses Act.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant had contested for the assembly seat from
Avinagoda constituency and declared elected on November 26,
1989 to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. An election
petition calling in question his election was fried by the
respondents in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the re-
opening day of the Court after Sankranthi vacation on Janu-
ary 15, 1990. As the statutory period of fortyfive days
under section 81 of the Act had expired during the vaca-
tions, the appellant moved an application praying for dis-
missal of the election petition, inter alia on the ground of
limitation. It was contended that the Registry was open
during this vacation, two Assistant Registrars were on duty,
urgent applications were disposed of by the vacation judges
and in fact 25 election petitions were filed during this
period. The High Court rejected all the contentions and
dismissed his application and relying on Section 10 of the
General Clauses Act held that filing of the Election Peti-
tion on the re-opening day of the Court was within limita-
tion. The correctness of the decision of the High Court has
been challenged by the successful candidate in this appeal
by special leave. Affirming the judgment of the High Court
and dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: Sections 4 and 5 of the Limitation Act have no
application to the election petitions under Representation
of the People Act. The benefit
702
Of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act can however, be
availed to have limitation saved under the Act. [704D]
The notification dated December 29, 1989 nowhere stated
that the Registry would remain open. A bare reading of the
said notification leaves no manner of doubt that the Andhra
Pradesh High Court remained closed for all purposes except
for applications of urgent nature for which vacation judges
and vacation officers were designated. There was no provi-
sion for filing of Election Petitions in the notification
and as such the filing of the election petition by the
respondents on re-opening day of the High Court by invoking
Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, was justified. There
is no infirmity in the reasoning and the conclusions reached
by the High Court. [706C, 708C]
Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, [1974] 3
SCR 31; Hari Shanker Tripathi v. Shiv Harsh and Others,
[1976] U.J. (S.C.) 242 and H.H. Raja Harinder Singh v. S.
Karnail Singh, [1957] S.C.R. 208, followed.
JUDGMENT: