Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging an order by the Election Tribunal District Judge, that admitted an election petition filed against the petitioner under Sections 19 and 20 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (‘the Act’), Dinesh Pathak, J., while dismissing the writ petition, said that under Section 20 of the Act, an election petition should be presented within 30 days of the election results, which would be calculated within 30 days from the date when result is announced by the returning officer.
Background
An election for the President of Nagar Palika Parishad, Muzaffarnagar, was conducted on 04-05-2023. The petitioner was declared the winner on 13-05-2023. However, the second respondent, dissatisfied with the election outcome, filed an election petition on 09-06-2023. This filing occurred during the Court’s summer vacation, accompanied by an application under Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil), 1957, requesting the Court to entertain the petition during this period. The Court rejected this application and scheduled the hearing for 02-07-2023.
Upon the Court’s reopening after the summer vacation, on 01-07-2023, the second respondent filed a miscellaneous application to register the election petition, as 1-07-2023 -was the last permissible day within the limitation period. This application was also rejected, and the hearing was postponed to 03-07-2023. On 03-07-2023, the District Judge admitted the election petition and ordered its registration, which prompted petitioner to file the current writ petition.
Contentions of the petitioner
The petitioner argued that the election petition was filed beyond the 30-day limitation period stipulated under Section 20 of the Act. He emphasized that the election result was declared on 13-05-2023, making the last day to file the petition 12-07-2023. Despite the respondent’s attempts to file on 01-07-2023, the petition was not registered until 04-07-2023, which the petitioner contended rendered the filing untimely.
Petitioner also challenged the maintainability of the election petition on two grounds. First, he argued that the petition was flawed due to the non-joinder of the State as a necessary party. Second, he claimed that the petition was not presented personally by the election petitioner but through counsel, which he alleged, violated Section 20 of the Act.
Decision and Analysis
The Court examined whether the election petition had been filed within the prescribed limitation period. It noted that although the election petition had been attempted to be presented within the 30-day window, procedural delays caused by Court vacations and scheduling had complicated its timely registration. The Court acknowledged these delays but focused on whether the initial presentation of the petition was within the allowable period.
In its analysis, the Court delved into Rule 13 and Rule 32 of the General Rules (Civil), 1957. Rule 13 permits urgent matters to be addressed even on holidays, while Rule 32 outlines the timing for the presentation of applications. The Court determined that these rules provided a framework that could accommodate the petition’s presentation, despite the procedural hurdles.
The Court also addressed the issues regarding the maintainability of the election petition. It considered the petitioner’s argument about the non-joinder of the State but found it insufficient to dismiss the election petition at this juncture.
Regarding the claim that the petition was not personally presented, the Court referred to the Full Bench decision in Sumitra Devi v. Special Judge 2020 SCC OnLine All 829, wherein it was clarified that the term “presented” does not strictly require personal submission by the petitioner, thereby undermining the petitioner’s contention.
In conclusion, the Court found that despite administrative challenges, the election petition was initially presented within the permissible period and should not be dismissed on technical grounds. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the election petition to proceed.
[Shahnawaz Ali v. Election Tribunal District Judge Muzaffarnagar, 2024 SCC OnLine All 1952, Order dated 27-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocate for Petitioner: Advocate Ravi Anand Agarwal, Advocate Shreya Gupta
Advocate for Respondent: Advocate Vivek Kumar Singh