C. Chatterji, A. N. Sinha and Gopal Singh, for respondent No.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and K. C. Puri, for the appellant.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 16, 1955, of the Election Tribunal, Bhatinda, in Election Petition No.
Against this decision, the appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave.
14 of 1954.
December 20.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR J. The appellant was one of the candidates who stood for election to the Legislative Assembly of the Paterson and East Punjab States Union from the Farber Constituency in the General Elections held in 1954.
On this,, the Election Commission passed the following order The petition was filed on l8 5 1954.
The Tribunal overruled this plea on the ground that under Rule 2 6 of the Election Rules, the General Clauses Act X of 1897 was applicable in interpreting them, and that under s. 10 of that Act, the election petition was presented within the time allowed by Rule 119 a .
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Admit.
XLIII of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and therein he prayed that the election of the appellant might be declared void on the ground that We and his agents had companymitted various companyrupt and illegal practices, of which particulars were given.
The plea put forward by the appellant in his written statement based on Rule 119 a was that whatever might have been the reason therefor, the fact was that the petition had number been filed number later than fourteen days from the publication of the return of the election expenses, which was on May 2, 1954, and that it was, therefore, number presented within the time prescribed.
The result was numberified in the Official Gazette on February 27, 1954, and the return of the election expenses was published therein on May 2, 1954.
But for the fact that 16 5 1954 and 17 5 1954 were holidays, the petition would have been time barred.
The appellant filed a written statement denying these allegations.
He secured the largest number of votes, and was declared duly elected.
On May 18, 1954, the first respondent filed a petition under s. 81 of the Representation of the People Act No.
Rule 119, which prescribes the period within which election petitions have to be filed, runs, so far as it is material, as follows Time within which an election petition shall be presented An election petition calling in question an election may, a in the case where such petition is against a returned candidate, be presented under section 81 at any time after the date of publication of the name, of such candidate under section 67 but number later than fourteen days from the date of publication of the numberice in the Official Gazette under rule 113 that the return of election expenses of such candidate and the declaration made in respect thereof have been lodged with the Returning Officer , The last date for filing the petition, according to this Rule, was May 16, 1954, but that happened to be a Sunday and the day following had been declared a public holiday.
132 of 1956.
The first respondent accordingly presented his petition on May 18, 1954, and in paragraph 6 stated as follows The offices were closed on 16th and 17th the petition is, therefore, well within limitation.
