The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the election petition challenging the election of Hathras Sadar MLA Anjula Singh Mahaur.
A Single Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh passed this order while hearing an Election Petition filed by Jay Prakash and Another.
The petitioners describe themselves as ‘electors’ from Hathras, Sadar Constituency in the election of the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh. By means of the election petition, they seek to impugn the election of respondent no1 at the last concluded Assembly Election2022.
The Election Petition was presented before the Court on 8.2.2024. On that date, it was reported to be beyond time by 655 days.
In such undisputed facts, it has to be first tested if the Election Petition is competent i.e entitled to be entertained, at all. For that consideration, the Court does not propose to doubt or test the correctness of the facts disclosed in the Election Petition. The averments made in the Election Petition may be examined on their face value, the Court said.
Also, undisputedly, the respondent no1 contested the election in question on the reserved seat, claiming reservation as a member of the Scheduled Caste, relying on a Caste Certificate issued to her disclosing her caste ‘Kori’.
In such facts, it has been submitted by the counsel for the election-petitioners, the respondent no1 has played fraud and thus successfully contested the Legislative Assembly Election from the Hathras Sadar, constituency against that seat reserved for Scheduled Caste. Since, fraud played by respondent no 1 has been first revealed to the petitioners on 25.1.2024, the limitation to file the Election Petition commenced from that date and not earlier.
On the request made by the Court, Nimai Das, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has acted as Amicus Curiae. He submitted, in the present statutory proceedings arising under the Act, the High Court may never exercise its inherent jurisdiction outside the narrow confines of the Act. The consequences of delay in presenting the Election Petition are harsh and rigid. They allow for no accommodation to be made to condone the delay, however genuine the reason may be. Relying on K Venkereswara Rao and another Vs. Bekkam Narsimha Reddi and others AIR 1969 SC 872, he would submit, there is no room to overlook the delay. In the context of the delay caused in filing the Election Petition, its consequence would remain one. Since, no other consequence is possible to be reached in such proceedings, dismissal of this petition may be offered at the very threshold.
Also, Nimai Das would submit, in the facts, there is no application made by the election-petitioners to condone or overlook the delay. Neither such application may have been entertained in these proceedings nor it may survive to the election-petitioners to cure any defect in that regard.
The Court observed that,
Having heard counsel for the election-petitioners and the Amicus Curiae, it is beyond any doubt-the period of limitation prescribed under the Act is rigid. It is also undoubted, the proceedings are original in nature arising by way of statutory proceedings under the Act. Therefore, on first principle itself, condonation of delay may never be permissible due the provisions of the Act.
Therefore, the consequence of non-compliance of Section 81 of the Act is prescribed. It is unequivocal. An Election Petition that does not comply with Section 81 of the Act may only invite a singular outcome/result. That has to be dismissed.
Once, Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act do not apply to proceedings under the Act, the plea being advanced by the counsel for the election-petitioners-based on Section 17 of the Act that commission of fraud would postpone the start point of limitation to the date of discovery of that fraud, does not merit any further consideration.
On facts, only to complete the discussion, it may be noted, no pleading exists to reach any conclusion, even on prima facie basis that fraud has been committed. As to the specific pleading of discovery of fraud made on 25.1.2024, there is a complete absence of pleading that fraud even as alleged by the election-petitioners could not be discovered by them earlier, though the election-petitioners had acted with “reasonable diligence”. Therefore, even otherwise, the plea advanced by the election petitioners is unsubstantiated.
In view of the above, the singular outcome of the petition cannot be avoided.
“Insofar as, the precedents relied upon by the counsel for the election-petitioners are concerned, the same are inapplicable. Pallav Sheth Vs Custodian and others (supra) was a case under Contempts of Courts Act, 1971.
The Supreme Court has clearly noted, the limitation may not begin to run till fraud was discovered, despite “reasonable diligence” observed by the litigant.
The Limitation Act per se does not apply to proceedings under the Act. Further, the Act is a complete Code providing for singular consequence in filing belated Election Petitions. Further, in absence of any other fact shown to the Court as may allow for any deliberation to arise, I find no useful purpose in avoiding the consequence of dismissal to visit the election-petitioners-by issuance of notice to the respondent. Already two years (of the term of five years), are over”, the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.