Full Judgment
Sat Pal, J.
1. In this petition petitioner Mange Ram has prayed for setting aside the election of respondent No. 4 Risal Singh from 07 Mullana Assembly Constituency, of Haryana Vidhan Sabha held on 27-4-1996. Along with the petition, the petitioner has filed application bearing CM No. 5-E of 1996 under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act read with Section 151 C.P.C. for condoning the delay of two days in filing the election petition. In para 4 of the application, it has been stated that papers for filing the election petition were handed over by the applicant to his Advocate Sh. R.S. Mamli and the last date for filing the election petition was 24-6-1996. It has further been stated that the counsel had called the petitioner on 23-6-1996 to put signatures and verify the facts but on 23-6-1996 petitioner had fallen sick and he was advised complete bed rest by the Doctor and he could recover from his sickness only on 25-6-1996 and came to the counsel for putting the signatures. It was in these circumstances that there was delay of two days in filing the election petition.
2. Notice of this application was issued to the respondents. Reply on behalf of respondent No. 4 has been filed. In the reply, inter alia, it has been stated that in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Limitation Act is not applicable when the election petition is filed beyond the period of limitation. It has, therefore, been prayed that the application as well as the election petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
3. Mr. Mamli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner during the course of his arguments conceded that the Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to the election petition. He, however, submitted that under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, the delay in filing the election petition could be condoned. He submitted that the last date for filing the election petition was 24-6-1996 but since the Court was closed up to 30-6-1996 on account of summer vacations, the election petition could be filed on or before 1-7-1996. He, therefore, contended that in fact there was no delay in filing the petition. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Simhadri Satya Narayana Rao v. M. Budda Prasad, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 449.
4. Mr. Mohunta, learned senior counselappearing on behalf of respondent No. 4, however,drew my attention to notification No. 313 Genl./XVII. 3 dated 27-11-1995 and submitted that interms of this notification, though the High Courtwas closed from I-6-1996 to30-6-19966n accountof long vacation but during this period the Courtwas not closed for entertaining and hearing theelection petitions. He, therefore, contended thatdelay could not be condoned. He also relied on thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Simhadri SatyaNarayana Rao's case (supra).
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration tothe submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Naratn Mishra, AIR 1974 SC 480 : 1974 (2) SCC 133; Hari Shankar Tripathi v. Shiv Harsh, 1976 (1) SCC 897, Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to the election petition under the Act. It was, however, held that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act would in terms be applicable to the election petitions under the Act. It has, therefore, not been disputed before me that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to the election petition. It is also not disputed that benefit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act can be availed to save limitation under the Act. But the question to be examined is as to whether High Court registry was open during summer vacation in the year 1996 from 1-6-1996 to 30-6-1996. In this connection reference may be made to High Court notification No. 313 dated 27-11-1995 which reads as under :--
'It is hereby notified for general information that the Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh will be closed for Civil Business except for hearing Election Petitions or any other matter arising out of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, urgent Civil Appeals/Petitions etc. including petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on account of long vacations in the year 1996 from June 1, to June 30, 1996 (both days inclusive). The Court will resume sitting on July 1, 1996 (Monday).
During this period except on Sundays and Holidays Appeals/Petitions etc. will be received at the Court at Chandigarh from such persons as may choose to present them.'
From this notification it is clear that the Court was closed during the said period for civil business except for hearing election petition or any other matter arising out of the Representation of thePeople Act, 1951 and certain other matters mentioned in the notification. In terms of this notification the High Court registry was open for filing of the election petitions during the period 1 -6-1996 to 30-6-1996. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Simhadri Satya Narayana Rao (supra), it is the vacation notification which has to be looked up to find out whether the registry is open for presenting the election petitions. Since in terms of the notification, the registry was open for filing the election-petitions, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the election petition could be filed on or before 1-7-1996. In fact that the petitioner in para-4 of the application himself has admitted that the date for filing the election petition was 24-6-1996 and since he fell ill, he could not come to the counsel for briefing before the last date. From these facts, it is evident that the election petition in the present case has been filed beyond the period of limitation. As stated hereinabove, the delay in filing the election petition cannot be condoned, if the registry is open for presenting the election petition in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Simhadri Satya Narayana Rao (supra).
7. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I do not find any merit in this application for condonation of delay and accordingly the application is dismissed.
8. Since the application for condonation of delay in filing the election petition has been dismissed, the election petition also stands dismissed.
9. With this order C.M. 5-E of 1996 and Election Petition No. 23 of 1996 stands disposed of.