SUMAN DEVIversusMANISHA DEVI AND ORS.

26                       [2018]
              SUPREME COURT     10 S.C.R. 26
                             REPORTS                      [2018] 10 S.C.R.


A                               SUMAN DEVI
                                       v.
                        MANISHA DEVI AND ORS.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 8337 of 2018)
B                             AUGUST 21, 2018
      [DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
            Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – s. 176 – Election
     petition – Applicability of Limitation Act, when appeal filed after
     the period prescribed under the Act – Held: Election petition must
C
     be filed within a period of 30 days of the date of the declaration of
     results – Said period cannot be extended – Provision of s. 14 of the
     Limitation Act, 1963 is clearly excluded – Election petition which is
     filed after the prescribed period is barred by Limitation and is liable
     to be dismissed – On facts, grant of liberty to file a fresh election
D    petition cannot obviate the bar of limitation – Fresh election petition
     filed by the first respondent was beyond the statutory period of 30
     days, thus, is dismissed – Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 14.
            On facts, first respondent was permitted to withdraw the
     election petition challenging the election of the appellant-returned
E    candidate, with liberty to institute a fresh petition. Thereafter,
     the first respondent filed a second election petition. Appellant
     filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of
     the election petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
     First respondent then filed an application u/s. 5 read with Section
     14 of the Limitation Act that if the limitation for filing the election
F
     petition had expired, the period spent between the filing of the
     earlier petition and its withdrawal may be excluded. Trial Court
     allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11. However, the
     District Judge as also the High Court set aside the same. Hence,
     the present appeal.
G          Allowing the appeal, the Court
           HELD: The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is a complete
     code for the presentation of election petitions. The statute has
     mandated that an election petition must be filed within a period
     of 30 days of the date of the declaration of results. This period
H
                                      26
         SUMAN DEVI v. MANISHA DEVI AND ORS.                             27


cannot be extended. The provision of Section 14 of the Limitation        A
Act 1963 would clearly stand excluded. The legislature having
made a specific provision, any election petition which fails to
comply with the statute is liable to be dismissed. The High Court
failed to notice both the binding judgments of this Court and its
own precedents on the subject. The first respondent filed an
                                                                         B
election petition in the first instance to which there was an
objection to maintainability under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Confronted with the objection under Order 7 Rule 11, the first
respondent obviated a decision thereon by withdrawing the
election petition. On facts, grant of liberty to file a fresh election
petition cannot obviate the bar of limitation. The fresh election        C
petition filed by the first respondent was beyond the statutory
period of 30 days and hence is dismissed. The impugned order of
the High Court is set aside. [Paras 9, 10] [33-F-H; 34-A, B]
      Joginder Singh v Baldev Singh 2010 (1) PLR 769 ;
      Rashpal Singh @ Rachpal Singh v Jasvir Singh                       D
      2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 408 ; Chet Ram v State of Punjab
      2010 (4) PLR 718 ; Darshan Singh v Karamjit Singh
      2012 (2) PLR 831 ; Parkasho v Bhola Devi 2012(3)
      PLR 541; Deepa Mangla v Nanak Chand
      CR No 523/2013 decided on 06.02.2015 ; Hukum Dev
      Narain Yadav v Lalit Narain Mishra (1974) 2 SCC                    E
      133 : [1974] 3 SCR 31 ; Charan Lal Sahu v Nandkishore
      Bhatt (1973) 2 SCC 530 : [1974] 1 SCR 294 ;
      Lachhman Das Arora v Ganeshi Lal (1999) 8 SCC
      532 : [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 174 – referred to.
                        Case Law Reference                               F

      2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 408        referred to       Para 3
      2010 (4) PLR 718                referred to       Para 3
      2012 (2) PLR 831                referred to       Para 3
                                                                         G
      2012 (3) PLR 541                referred to       Para 3
      [1974] 3 SCR 31                 referred to       Para 6
      [1974] 1 SCR 294                referred to       Para 7
      [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 174        referred to        Para 8
                                                                         H
28             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 10 S.C.R.


A          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8337
     of 2018.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2017 of the High Court
     of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 1120 of
     2017.
B           Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Shashank Tripathi, Shish Pal Later, Johri
     Mal, Sonit Sinhmar, Devesh Kumar Tripathi, Advs. for the appearing
     parties.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C            DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The appellant and the first
     respondent contested elections for the post of Ward Councilor, from
     Ward No 18 of the District Council of Mahendergarh. The results of
     election were declared on 28 January 2016.The appellant was declared
     to be the elected candidate. On 10 February 2016, the first respondent
     filed an Election Petition namely, Civil Suit 9/2016 (CS 1086/2016) under
D    Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 challenging the
     election of the appellant. Upon service of the election petition, the
     appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for
     rejection of the petition on the ground that the first respondent had failed
     to present it in person as required by Section 176. Notice was issued on
E    the application. The respondent filed her reply. On 1 March 2016, the
     first respondent moved an application for withdrawal of the election
     petition. The application was allowed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division
     on the same day and the first respondent was permitted to withdraw the
     election petition with liberty to institute a fresh petition. Subsequently on
     2 March 2016 the first respondent filed a second election petition, Civil
F    Suit 361/2016(CS 1106/2016). The appellant filed an application under
     Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the election petition on the ground that it
     was barred by limitation. An application was thereupon filed by the first
     respondent purportedly under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the
     Limitation Act submitting inter alia that if the limitation for filing the
G    election petition had expired, the period spent between the filing of the
     earlier petition and its withdrawal may be excluded since the first
     respondent was bona fide espousing her remedies. The appellant opposed
     the application.


H
          SUMAN DEVI v. MANISHA DEVI AND ORS.                                   29
               [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

       2. By a judgment dated 19 July 2016 the Trial Court allowed the          A
application under Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground that the fresh election
petition was presented after the expiry of 30 days prescribed for the
institution of an election petition. The first respondent preferred an appeal
which was allowed by the District Judge, Narnaul on 18 January 2017.
The appellant challenged the order of the District Judge before the High
                                                                                B
Court. The Civil Revision has been dismissed by the impugned order of
the High Court dated 11 August 2017. The High Court has observed
thus:
       “The application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was filed
       subsequently when petitioner herein raised an objections(sic).           C
       Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not provide for filing of a
       separate application. In any case, now application under Section
       14 of the Limitation Act has already been filed, therefore, the
       irregularity, if any, stand cured.”
       3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant              D
submits that the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 is a complete code
for the presentation and adjudication of election petitions. Counsel
submitted that an election petition has to be instituted under Section 176
within 30 days from the date of the declaration of the results of the
elections. An election petition which does not comply with Section 176
must be rejected outright. Learned counsel submitted that this view has         E
consistently been followed in several decisions of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court, to which a reference was made. These are: Joginder
Singh v Baldev Singh1, Rashpal Singh @ Rachpal Singh v Jasvir
Singh2, Chet Ram v State of Punjab3, Darshan Singh v Karamjit
Singh4, Parkasho v Bhola Devi 5 and Deepa Mangla v Nanak                        F
Chand6.
        4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
first respondent submitted that a triable case arises against the appellant
for submitting a false certificate of Matriculation and hence, the order of
the High Court may not be interfered with.                                      G
1
  2010(1) PLR 769 paras 6 & 7
2
  2009(3) RCR (Civil) 408
3
  2010(4) PLR 718
4
  2012(2) PLR 831
5
  2012(3) PLR 541
6
  CR No 523/2013 decided on 06.02.2015                                          H
30             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 10 S.C.R.


A           5. Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 provides
     as follows:
            176.Determination of validity of election enquiry by judge and
            procedure:
            (1) If the validity of any election of a member of a Gram
B           Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad or 2 [ * * * ]
            Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chairman or Vice-Chairman,
            President or Vice-President of Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad
            respectively is brought in question by any person contesting the
            election or by any person qualified to vote at the election to which
            such question relates, such person may at any time within thirty
C           days after the date of the declaration of results of the election ,
            present an election petition to the civil court having ordinary
            jurisdiction in the area within which the election has been or should
            have been held, for the determination of such question.
            (2) A petitioner shall not join as respondent to his election petition
D           except the following persons :—
            (a) where the petitioner in addition to challenging the validity of
            the election of all or any of the returned candidates claims a further
            relief that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected,
            all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner and where
E           no such further relief is claimed, all the returned candidates ;
            (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt
            practices are made in the election petition.
            (3) All election petitions received under sub-section (1) in which
            the validity of the election of members to represent the same
F           electoral division is in question, shall be heard by the same civil
            court.
            (4) (a) If on the holding such inquiry the civil court finds that a
            candidate has, for the purpose of election committed a corrupt
            practice within the meaning of sub-section (5) he shall set aside
            the election and declare the candidate disqualified for the purpose
G
            of election and fresh election may be held.
            1[(aa) If on holding such enquiry the Civil Court finds that-
              (i) on the date of his election a returned candidate was not
                  qualified to be elected;
H
   SUMAN DEVI v. MANISHA DEVI AND ORS.                                  31
        [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

  (ii) any nomination has been improperly rejected; or                  A
  (iii) the result of the election, in so far it concerns a returned
       candidate, has been materially affected by improper
       acceptance of any nomination or by any corrupt practice
       committed in the interest of the returned candidate by an
       agent other than his election agent or by the improper           B
       reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception
       of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with or
       violation of the provisions of the Constitution of India or of
       this Act, or any rules or orders made under this Act,
       election of such returned candidate shall be set aside and
       fresh election may be held.;]                                    C

(b) If, in any case to which 2[clause (a) or clause (aa)] does not
apply, the validity of an election is in dispute between two or more
candidates, the court shall after a scrutiny and computation of the
votes recorded in favour of each candidate, declare the candidate
who is found to have the largest number of valid votes in his           D
favour, to have been duty elected : Provided that after such
computation, if any, equality of votes is found to exist between
any candidate and the addition of one vote will entitle any of the
candidate to be declared elected, one additional vote shall be added
to the total number of valid votes found to have been received in       E
the favour of such candidate or candidates, as the case may be,
elected by lot drawn in the presence of the judge in such manner
as he may determine.
(5) A person shall be deemed to have committed a corrupt
practice-                                                               F
(a) who with a view to induce a voter to give or to refrain from
giving a vote in favour of any candidate, offers or gives any money
or valuable consideration, or holds out any promise of individual
profit, or holds out any threat of injury to any person ; or
(b) who, with a view to induce any person to stand or not to stand      G
or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an
election, offers or gives any money or valuable consideration or
holds out any promise or individual profit or holds out any threat
of injury to any person ; or
                                                                        H
32                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 10 S.C.R.


A              (c) who hires or procures whether on payment or otherwise, any
               vehicle or vessel for the conveyance of any voter (other than the
               person himself, the members of his family or his agent) to and
               from any polling station.
               Explanation 1.– A corrupt practice shall be deemed to have been
B              committed by a candidate, if it has been committed with his
               knowledge and consent by a person who is acting under the
               general or special authority of such candidate with reference to
               the election.
               Explanation 2.– The expression “vehicle” means any vehicle used
C              or capable of being used for the purpose of road transport whether
               propelled by mechanical power or otherwise, and whether used
               for drawing other vehicles or otherwise.”
            Sub-section (1) of Section 176 clearly specifies a period of 30
     days from the date of the declaration of the results of the election within
D    which an election petition has to be filed. There is no provision for
     condoning delay or for extending the period of limitation.
           6. In Hukum Dev Narain Yadav v Lalit Narain Mishra7, while
     considering whether the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 would be
     applicable to an election petition under the Representation of People Act
E    1951, P.Jaganmohan Reddy, J., speaking for a three Judge bench of this
     Court held thus:
               “..The applicability of these provisions has, therefore, to be Judged
               not from the terms of the Limitation Act but by the provisions of
               the Act relating to the filing of election petitions and their trial to
F              ascertain whether it is a complete code in itself which does not
               admit of the application of any of the provisions of the Limitation
               Act mentioned in Section 29(2) of that Act.”
           This Court held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation
     Act do not govern filing of election petitions or their trial.
G           7. In Charan Lal Sahu v Nandkishore Bhatt8, a two Judge
     bench held that there is no common law right to challenge an election
     since it is purely a matter of regulation by the terms of the statute. The
     right being statutory, the terms of the statute must be complied with.
     7
         (1974) 2 SCC 133
     8
         (1973) 2 SCC 530
H
             SUMAN DEVI v. MANISHA DEVI AND ORS.                                     33
                  [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

       8. A three Judge bench of this Court in Lachhman Das Arora v                  A
Ganeshi Lal9, construed the provisions of Section 81 (1) of the
Representation of the People Act 1951, which prescribes a period of 45
days to file an election petition. Chief Justice Dr AS Anand, speaking for
the Court, held thus:
          “7. On its plain reading, Section 81(1) lays down that an election         B
          petition calling in question any election may be presented on one
          or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100
          and Section 101 of the Act to the High Court by any candidate at
          such election or by an elector within forty-five days from, but not
          earlier than, the date of election of the returned candidate, or if
          there are more than one returned candidate at the election and             C
          the dates of their election are different, the later of those two
          dates. The Act is a special code providing a period of limitation
          for filing of an election petition. No period for filing of an election
          petition is prescribed under the Indian Limitation Act. The Act
          insofar as it relates to presentation and trial of election disputes is    D
          a complete code and a special law. The scheme of the special
          law shows that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Indian
          Limitation Act do not apply. If an election petition is not filed within
          the prescribed period of forty-five days, Section 86(1) of the Act,
          which provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition
          which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section         E
          82 or Section 117, is straightaway attracted.”
       9. The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 is a complete code for
the presentation of election petitions. The statute has mandated that an
election petition must be filed within a period of 30 days of the date of
the declaration of results. This period cannot be extended. The provision            F
of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 would clearly stand excluded.
The legislature having made a specific provision, any election petition
which fails to comply with thestatute is liable to be dismissed. The High
Court has failed to notice both the binding judgments of this Court and its
own precedents on the subject, to which we have referred. The first                  G
respondent filed an election petition in the first instance to which there
was an objection to maintainability under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
Confronted with the objection under Order 7 Rule 11, the first respondent
obviated a decision thereon by withdrawing the election petition. The
9
    (1999) 8 SCC 532
                                                                                     H
34                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 10 S.C.R.


A    grant of liberty to file a fresh election petition cannot obviate the bar of
     limitation. The fresh election petition filed by the first respondent was
     beyond the statutory period of 30 days and was hence liable to be rejected.
            10. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
     order of the High Court dated 11 August 2017. We hold that the election
B    petition filed by the first respondent shall stand dismissed There shall be
     no order as to costs.


     Nidhi Jain                                                    Appeal allowed.


C




D




E




F




G




H