£, ¥-• 1. 2. 3. 4 s 7. 8. 9. 10. 11^ Ram Sin.gh, Aged about 42 years, S/o Govind Singh, R/o Viflage - Patadhi, T'nesis and Distt. Korba (C.G.) 12. State of Chhattisgarh . Through res Secretary Department of Panchayat D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Prescribed Authority, Distt. Korba (C.G.) Indrajit Sjngh, S/o Phool Singfi Kanwar, Aged About - 37 years (At present 39 yeare) Ghunjram, S/o Sultfiiram,, Aged about 42 years (At present 44 years) Dukharan, S/o Maharaj Singh, Aged about 45 years (At present 47 years) Budhpa! Slngh, S/o Ganga Singh, Aged about 35 years (At present 37 years) Bhagwat, S/o Sudharam, Aged about 50 . yeare (At present 52 years) i\flohan, S/o Romsingh, Aged about 63 years (At present 65 years) Raksudan, S/o Pitambar Singh, Aged abouf 60 years (At present 62 years) Rudrapal Singh S/o Brijlai, Aged about 30 years (At present 32 years) Satuhan, S/o Jai Singh, Aged about 37 'years (At present 39 years) R-3 to R-11 all are Resident ofVillage - Patadhi, Thesil and Distt. Korba (C.G.) Returning Officer, Village - Patadhi Thesii andDistt. Korba(C.G.) Detjtion_ynder_Articie 227 ofthe Constitution pfjndia J3resent: Shri Vinay Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Advocate Generai for the State/respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Sunil Sahu, counse! for respondent No.3. Shri Rajesh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.9. on12<t1^ l-1eard learned oounse! for the parties. It has been contended on be'nalf of the petitioner that the detay in fiiing the election petition cannot be condoned in light of Section 122 (2) of C.G. Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 which is referred to as hereunder: "2. Extension of limstatson - The iimitation prescribed for filing of eiection petition cannot be extended. Provisions of Limitation Act, inctuding its section 5, do not app!y to such presentation. KishanSing.h Vs. Han/eer Singh, 1S98(i)MPW? ^- In support of learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon A.f.R. 1974 page 480 Hukumdev Naraln Yadav Vs. Laiit Narain iVlishra wherein it has been held as follows:- "17. Though S. 29(2) of the Limitation Act has been made applicable to appeals both under the Act as weil as under the Code of Criminai Procedure, no case has been brought to our notice where S. 29(2) has been made applicable to an election petition filed under S. 81 of the Act by virtue of which ei'ther Section 4, 5 or 12 of the Limitation Act has been attracted. Even assuming that where a period of iimitation has not been fixed for election petitions in the Schedule to the Limitation Act which is different from that fixed under S. 81 of the Act, S. 29(2} wouid be attracted, and what we have to determine is whether the provisions of this section are expressly exciuded in the case of an election petition. It is contended before us t'nat the words "expressly excluded" would mean that there must be an express reference made in the specia! or local iaw to the specific provisions of the Limitation Act of which e operation is to be excluded. As usual the meaning given in the Dtetionary has been relied upon, but what we have to see te whether the scheme of the special !aw, that is, in this case the Act, and the nature of the remedy provided therein are such ^^-^'^^•ii'^^^,^ »- 3 that the L^isiature irtended it to be a compiete code by itseff which a!one should govern the several matters provided by it. If on an examination of the relevant provisions it is clear that the provisions of the Limitatjon Act are necessarily excluded then the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act. tn our view, even in a case where the special \aw does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 ofthe Limifation Act by an express reference, it 'wuld nonetheless be open fo the Court to examine whether and to what extent the nature ofthose provisions or the nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation. The provisions of S. 3 of the Limitation Act that a suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed are provided for in S. 86 ofthe Aot which gives a peremptory command thaf the HIgh Court shall dlsmiss an election petition which does not comply vi/ith the provisions of Ss. 81, 82 or 117. It wil! &e seen that S. 81 is not the only section mentioned in Section 86,and if the Limitation Act were to appiy to an eiection petition under S. 81 it shouid equally appiy to Ss. 82 and 117 because under S. 86 the High Court cannot say that by an application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, S. 81 is complied with white no such benefit !S available in dismissing an application for non- compliance with the provisions ofSections 82 and 117 ofthe Act or alternatively if the provisions of the Limitati'on Act do not apply to Section 82 and Section 117 of the Act, It cannot be said that they apply to S. 81. Again S. 6 of the Limitation Act which provides for the extension of the period .of limitation iill after the disabi!ity in the case of a person who is either a minor or insane or an idiot is inapplicable to an eiection petition. Similarly, Ss. 7 to 24 are in terms inapplicable to the proceedings under the Act, partioularly in respect of the filing of election petitions and their trial". In 2002(3) M.P.H.T. 547 Kalka Prasad Vs. Ramji Lai and others the Madhya Pradesh High Court has also held that the delay cannot be condoned. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has contended befpre this Court that on 15/16-02-2005 the Sub Divisfonal Officer (Revenue) who had to -L;-^^_^,, 1;^- ^ act as the prescribed authority was not available, therefore the election petition could not be filed and one day delay caused in filing the petition was subsequertly condoned. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State ka< placed before this Court certain documents signed by the Sub Divisiona! Officer (Revenue), Korba dated 09-09-2007, are taken on record. From perusal of the same it is crystal ciear that the prescribed authority was available on 15-02-2005 and 16-02-2005 in his office. However, the record of 17-02-2005 is not available. In the light of the statement made by Oy. Advocate General and the relevant documents placed on record there is rio doubt that ths prescribed authbrity was present in the office on 15-02-2005 and 16-02-2005. Accordingly, the Election Petition oould have been filed within time. In this cireumstance, the order passed by the Sub Divisiona! Cfficer (Reyenue) is set aside and the vvrit petition stands allowed. Sd/- Acting ChiefJustice ¥• J'^-.