IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH CIVIL REVISION N0. ^_-3> /2006 APPLHCANT ^RespoAndent No.l ^Taukir Dani, Aged about 47 years S/o. Gulam Sarvar Dani, R/o. Kabir Nagar Basna, P.S. and Tahsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) ^ RESPlONDENT : ESectilon Petitioner \^ i^ s> .^'M.^^.V'' ..^^^w''' ^'''c^^y ^7' '<< ;'^ ^ 21 / VERSUS Chandagi Ram, Aged about 65 yrs, S/o. Hanu Naik, R/o. Adarsh Nagar, Basna, P.S. and Tahsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Jaijram Sahu, Aged about 50 years S/o. Ghasiram Sahu, R/o. Ward No. 2, Basna, Tahsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) p^ ^ 5L ^ ^ Mohd. Irfan Gigani @ Illu, Aged about 35 years S/o Kuddas Gigani, R/o. Bazar Para, Basna, Tahsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Girdharilal Dadsena @ Dr. Chhotu, Aged about 45 years, S/o. Ramprasad Dadsena, R/o, Ward No. 13, Tikrapara, Basna, Distt. Basna, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Retuming Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Basna, Arvind Shaj-raa, Tahsildaj:, Basna, Taiisil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund (CG) District Election Officer, Collector, Mahasajnund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Resp. No.2 to 6 respondenl/respondents CIVIL, REVISION UNDER SECUTION .s^" 26(21 OF CHHATTISGARH MUNKCIPALITIES ACT 1961 R/W: RULE^-9 OF CHHAmSGARH MUNKCIPALITIES^tELECTION PETITOINl RULES, 1962 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CiVJL REVJSSON N0. 23 OF 2006 APPLICANT/ RESPGNDESMT N0.1 TAUKSR DANI Vs. RESPOMDENTS/ ELECTIONER PETiTJONERS AND POST FOR ORDER ON S MAY20G6 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT N0.1 HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0. 23 OF 2006 TAUKIR DANI Vs. \ RESPONDENTS/ ELECTIONER PETITIONERS CHANDAGI AND OTHERS APPL1CANT BY SHRI MANOJ PARANJPE, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS N0.1 TO 4 BY SHRI R.K. PANDEY, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS HQ.5&Q BY SHR! P.K. VERI^A, Sr. ADVGCAT! QRDER (PASSED ON ^ /05^2008) D_HIRENDRAIVIJSHRA,,J The applicant has preferred this civii revlsion under Sectlon 26(2) of Chhattisgarh Munioipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as IAct of 1961) rA^ Rule 19 of Chhattisgarh .iVlunicipalities (Eiection Petition) Ruies, 1962 against the order dated 24.01 .2006 passed by learned District Judge, Raipur in Election Petltion No. 19/05 and by which the application preferred by the appiicant under Order 7 Ruie 11 of the C.P.C. for dismissing the eiection petltion preferred by respondent No. 1, has been dlsmlssed. 2. The short question invoived for adjudication of this civil revision is that - whether the election Tribuna! can condone delay In flllng the eiection petition by extending the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act to the eiectlon petitioner. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that appiicant Taukir Dani vvas deciared elected as President of Basna Municipaiitles (Nagar Panchayat, Basna) and his election was duly notlfied in the officiai dated 26.12.2004. Respondent No.1 Chandagi Ram preferred election petition under section 20 of the Act of 1961 in the Court of First Additionai District Judge, Mahasamund. However, the same was returned by the iearned flrst A.DJ., IViahasamund on 16-11.2005 to respondent No. 1 for presentjng the same befo.re appropriate Court. Thereafter, the petition was fi!ed In the Court of iearned District Judge cn 18.11.2005. The .applicant moved an appllcation under Order 7 Ruie 11 of the C.P.C. r/w section 20(3) of the Act of 1961 (Annexure A-6) mentioning therein that eiection petltion on the face of it is not maintainabie as the same has been presented beyond the period of jimitatlon prescribed under section 20(3) of the Act of 1961 and the eiectlon Tribunaj is not competent to condone deiay in filing the eiectjon petition. However,.the application preferred by the appilcant has been rejected by the iearned eiection Tribunai by the impugned order. 4. Learned. counsei for the applicant submlts provislons 'of Llmitation Act are not applicabie to the ejection petition proceedings under the Ac-t of 1961 as the IVIuniciioalitJes Act and Rule framed thereunder is a complete and self- contained code !ike Representation ofthe People's Act which does not adrnit of the jntroduction of the principies or the provisions of !av^ contained in the indian Limitatlon Act. 5. Referring to section 20 of the Act of 1961 it is that eiectlon petitions are to be filed strictiy in accordance wlth the provision of section 20 of the Act of 1961 on the grounds enumerated under sectjon 22 of the Act and eiection so is to be enqulred into and of as per procedure under 23 of the Act and Rules under the Act. 6. Reiylng upon the judgments of Supreme Court in A|R,19t9,S.C, 872 in the matter of K. V» NarasimhaReddiand.others, reported in in the matter of Kam^£_La| Vs, Gore Lai, and the judgment reported in JlgSJI] iy.P,W,N= 83 in the of V, jt is by iearned counsel for the applicant the provisions of the Limitatjon Act are not to the eiection petitlon. 7. Further reiying upon the judgment reported in 1997 (I i JU 433 deiivered jn the matter of Ashok Barman V. Smt. Sadhana Jain and another it is argued that provisions of section 20 of the Act of 1961 are mandatory. .8. Referring to Ruie 5 and 11 of tEie Eiection Petition Rules 1962 it is' argued that the procedure to be foilowed by the eiection petltion Judge and powers of the Judge for the above purpose, has aiso been eiaborately prescribed and thus it is contended that the eiection Tribunai by condoning delay in filing the eiection petltion with the aid of section 14 ofthe Llmitatjon Act, has in fact exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it as per the Ivlunlcjpaiities Act and the eiection petition ruies framed under the Act. 9. On the other hand, iearned counsel for the respondents referring to the impugned order argued that the Court of the District Judge whlie hearing the election petitlon as designated authority acts as a Court and therefore, provisions of the Limitation Act are aiso attracted. .!t is further argued respondent No 1 (petitloner therein) bonafidely fiied election petition before First A.DJ., Mahasamund Vi/ithin time on 24.01.2005. HIs petition was entertained and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents did not any objectlon regarding majntainabi!ity of the petition and participated in the proceedings for a considerable period and submitted their reply and objection regarding maintainability of the petition was taken by the app!lcant at the fag end of the triai and on that objection the e!ection petitlon was returned for presenting the same before tlie appropriate authorities. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is evident that the respondents were bonafideSy prosecuting the eiectjon petltion before the Tribuna! and therefore, as per provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act time spent in prosecutlng the ejection petition before the Court of First ADJ has rightly been condoned. • •£ \; 10. Placlng reiiance on the judgment of S.C. reported in 2000(1) IVIanisa 20 in the matter of P. Sarthi Vs. State Bank of Indla and the judgment of M.P. Hlgh Court reported in 1985 Manisa 283 In the matter of IVI.P. State Co- operativeJ^arketina Federation , Bhopa! Vs.,UnJonofMd^^^^ it is argued by iearned counsei for the respondents that sectlon 14 of the Limitatlon Act does not speak of only a "Civil Court" but speaks oniy of a "Court" and therefore, any authority or Tribunal having the trapplngs of a court wouid be a "Court" within the meaning of section 14 of the Limitation Act inciuding the designated eiection Tribunai under the Municipaiities Act. 11. i have heard learned counsei for the parties. 12. Before appreciating the arguments advanced by the respectlve parties, it would be appropriate to refer to relevant provislons of the Munjcipaiities Act for the purposes of controversy invoived in this cjvi! revision. 13. Chapter 2 of the Municipaiities Ad provides for constitution of Municipaiities. Section 20 of Chapter 2 refers to election petltions whereas section 22 mentions. the grounds for deciaring eiection or (nomination) to be void and section 23 prescrlbes the procedure to be foiiowed in disposai of the election petition. Eiectlon Petition Rules 1962 has enacted under section 23 of the Act of 19S1. Section 24 of the Act of 1961 deais with the orders to be rnade by the Judge at the conclusion of the tria! of eJection petition. Section 26 (1) of the Act gives finaiity to the decision of the Judge on the petition whereas section 26(2) provides for the grounds upon which revision can be fiied before the High Court against the decision of the election Tribunai. Statutor^ ruies under section 23 ofthe Act - Municipalities Eiection Petitjon Rules 1962 have aiso been framed. Ru!e 5 prescribes the procedure to be followed in the election proceedings arsd Ruie 1 1 prescribes the powers of the Judge enquiring Into such petitions. Rule 12 provides for applicatlon of the indian Evidence Act subject to the provisions of the rules and Ruie 19 provides for the revision agalnstthe decision ofthe Judge. ^' 14. Thus frorn perusa! of the provlsions of the above mentioned sections and statutory ruies framed thereunder it is evident that the Munjcipallties Act1961 is a compiete and seif-contained code. Relevant provislons referred to by the applicant are belng rsproduced herelnunder; h^— Sections ofthe Munlcipaiities Act, 1961 20. ESection petitions.- (1) No election or 3[nomjnation] under thls Act be called into question except by a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) Such petltion may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 22. (a) by any candidate at such eiection or [nomination]; or (b) (1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx (ii) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (iii) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to the District Judge, where such eiection or 2[nomination] is heid within the revenue district in which the Court ofthe District Judge is situate, and in any other case, to the Additionai District Judge having the perrnanent seat of his Court within the revenue district in which such eiection or nomination is held and if there is more than one such Additiona! District Judge withirs the said revenue district, to such one of them as the Dlstrict Judge may specify for the purpose (hereinafter such District Judge or Additionaj District Judge referred to asJudge). (3) No petition presented under sub-sectlon (2) shaii be admitted uniess (1) it Is presented wlthin thirty days from the date on which the result of such eiection or [nomination] was notified in the Gazette;and (ii) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rules of the Municjpalities (EJection Petition)_RyiesJ^62 f 6 (S> ^ 5. Procedyre.- Subject to the provision of the Act or of these rules, every election petition shail be enquired into by the Judge, as neariy as rnay be, in accordance with the procedure appiicabie under the Code of Cjvii Procedure, 1908,tothetriaiofsults; Provsded that it shaii oniy be necessary for the Judge to make a memorandum of the substance of the evidence of any wltness exarnlned by him. 11. Powers of the Judge."- For purposes of enquiring into such petitions, the Judge shaii have the powers which are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the foijowing matters:- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and requiring the deposit of their expenses; (c) compeiiing the production of documents; (d) examining witnesses cn oath; (e) granting adjournments; (f) reception of evldence taken on affidavit; and (g) issuing commlssions for the examlnation of witnesses; and may summon and examine suo moto any person whose evidence appears to him to be materiai; and shali be deemed to be a civii court within the meaning of sections 480 and 482 of the Code of Crimjnai Procedure, 1898. 15. From a conjoint readlng of sectlon 20 sub-section 1, sub-section 2 and sub-section 3, it emerges that the election petition is to be presented strictly In accordance with the provisions of this section which provides that the petition is to be presented by any candidate in such eiection to the DJstrict Judge of the revenue district where such eiection is heid and in any other case, to the Additional District Judge having the permanent seat of his Court within the revenue dlstrict in which such eiection is held and where there are more than 7 72; one Additiona! Djstrict Judge withln the said revenue dlstrict, to such Additionai District Judge who has been specified for this purpose bythe District Judge. 16. in the instant case admittediy Mahasamund is a separate revenue district having two Additiona! District Judges with their permanent seats of courts at Mahasamund and none of them was specified as Judge under the Act by the District Judge. The eiection petltion was fiied by the respondents in the Court of First Additionaj District Judge, Mahasamund, however, on objection by the respondents the First Additional District Judge returned. the presented by the respondents for fiiing the same before the appropriate Court on 16.11.2005 and the same was presented on 18.11.2005 before the Dlstrict Judge, Raipuralong with an appiication under 14 ofthe Limitation Act. '^. 17. Sub-section 3 of section 20 of the Act it mandatory no is to be under sub-section 2 by the Tribuna!-unless it is presented within thlrty days from the date on which the of such e!ection was notified In the Thus as per provisions of sub-section 2 of sectlon 20 which is mandatory, the eiection petitloner couid not have filed the election petition In the Court of First Additlonaj District Judge, Mahasamund as the said court was not specified by the District Judge, Raipur as a Judge for the election petitlon under the Act and the learned Additiona! District Judge, Mahasamund rightly returned the petltlon for want ofjurisdiction. 18. The next question is - whether the District Judge was justifled in condoning the time spent by respondent No. 1 (the eiection petitioner) in bonafideiy prosecuting his eiection petition in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Mahasamund? 19. The above question has come for consideration before the Supreme Court on number of occasions. Paragraph - 14 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of K. Venkateswara Rao (supra) is being reproduced hereinunder; <„ 14« It is weii settied that amendments to a petition in a civii proceeding and the addition of parties to such a proceeding are generaiiy possible subject to the iaw of jimitatlon. But an eiection petition stands on a different footing. The triai of such a petition and the powers of the Court in respect thereof are all drcumscribed by the Act. The Indian Limitation Act of 1963 is an Act to consoiidate and amend the iaw of limitation of suits and other proceedlngs and for purposes connected therewith. The provisions of this Act wili app!y to aii civii proceedings and some criminai proceedings which can be taken in a Court of !aw uniess the appilcation thereof has been exciuded by any enactment; the extent of such appiicatlon is governed by Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. In our opinlon however the Limltation Act cannot appiy to proceedings like an eiection •petition inasmuch as the of Act is'' a conipiete and seif-contained code which does not admit of the introdyction of the or the provisions of law contained m the Limitation Act. ^' 20. in the matter of Anwarl Basavarai Patli and others. Vs. Slddaramalah and others reported in AIR 1994 S.C. 512 the Supreme Court whiie dealing with recrlmination notice under section 97 of the Representation of the Peopie's Act which was fiied beyond the period of 14 days of the commencement of trial with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has heid that sectlon 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicabie to the filing of an election petition. Citing eariier judgments of the Supreme Court and dealing with section 29(2) of the indian Limitation Act jt has been held that <1:he appijcabillty of these provisions has, therefore, to be judged not from he terms of the Limitation Act but by the provisions of the Act reiating to the filing of eiection petitions and their trla! to ascertain whether it is a compiete code in itself which does not admit of the appiication of any of the provisions of the Limltatjon Act mentioned in S. 29(2) of that Act." 9 (^ 21. tn the matter of Kamar Lal (supra) the M.P. High Court whiie deaiing section 20 sub-section 3(i) of the Act of 1961 has heid that e!ection petition under the Act presented after 30 days, cannot be entertained as Ciause 1 of sub-section 3 of section 20 contains specific bar against entertaining and trying eiection petitions presented after 30 days and the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable for condoning the de!ay. 22. in the judgment reported in 1998 (1) MPWN 83 the M.P. High Court has heid that there is a constitutlonal bar to tb6 entertainnient of the disputes in forums other than those provided under the statute and the provislons whlch are contained in the Adhiniyam of 1993 and the Ruies made thereunder are in materia with Representation of the People Act. The writ petition of the election petitioner, whose election petition was disrnissed by the.Tribunai as barred by limitation, was also dismissed. 23. in the matter of matter of Lachhnnan Das Arora Vs. GaneshJ^La! others reported in (1 §99)8 SCC 532 it has been heid by the Supreme Court in paragraph -7 that "no period for filing of an eiection petitjon is described under the Sndian Limjtation Act. The Act insofar as it relates to presentation and triai of eiection dlsputes is a compiete code and a special iaw. The scheme of the speciai law shows that provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Indian Limltation Act do not apply. If an eiection petition is not fiied within the prescribed period of forty-five days, Section 86(1) of the Act, whlch provides that the High Court dismiss an eiection petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117Js straighfr^ay attracted." 24. in the instant case aiso as has been mentioned above, section 20 sub- section 1, sub-sectlon 2 and sub-section 3 ciearly provides that no petition presented to the designated Tribunal under sub-section 2 shai! be admitted uniess it is presented within thirty days from the date on \¥hich result of such eiection is notified in the Gazette. It has aiready been heid by referring to various provisions of the speciai Act that Act is a complete code insofar as it 10 reiates to presentation and triai of election dispute, therefore, section 4 to section 24 of the Indian Limitation Act has no application In the matters of eiection petition under the Act and it is mandatory for the Tribunai to dlsmiss any eiection petition presenteo' beyond the period prescribed under the Limltatlon Act i.e«30 days. p^WlllN^ \..-.' 25. So far as the judgment of the Supreme Court de!ivered in the matter of P. Sarthi (supra) relied upon by the iearned Tribunal is concerned, the dispute in that case was that the petitioner was removed from the services by the Bank. He preferred appeal before the iocai Board of the Bank Vi/hlch v/as rejected and he preferred yet another under T-amlinaidu Shops and Establishment Act which was aiso by the Dy. Commissioner of Labours (Appeais) on the ground that provisions of Shops and Establishrnent Act are not applicabie to the nationaiized bank. Thereafter the petitloner a suit whlch was by the trial Court cn the ground that the suit was barred by law of iimitation. However, the preferred against the judgment of the trial Court was ailowed and hls removai frorn semces was found to be defective. The respondenVSank preferred second appeal and that v^as aiiowed by the Madras High Court and the suit of the petitioner was he!d to be barred by !aw of lirnitatlon and in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Supreme Court and the same \vas aliowed with a flnding that the Court of Dy. Commissioner of Labours (Appeals) is a Tribunal competent to hear and decide the appeais and as such is a Court \¥ithin the meaning of section 14 of the Limitation Act and therefore, the petitioner was entitied for exemption of the period spent by him in prosecuting the departmentai and the appea! preferred before the Labour Commissioner. Ho'wever, in the instant case the dispute reiates to eiection petitlon under the MuniclpaSltles Act which is a complete code Insofar as It relates to presentation and trlai of eiection disputes and therefore, the provisions of sections 4 to 24 of the indian Limitation Act has not appiicatlon in the instant case as held in Lachhama Arora's case. 11 '^. 26. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Court Is of the considered opinion that the election Tribuna! by extending benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act condoning the deiay in fiiing the election petitlon, has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it under the Act of 1961. 27. !n the resuit, the revision is aliowed, the impugned order passed by the Tribuna! rejectlng the appjlcation under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C, preferred by the appiicant is iiiega! and the same Is accordingiy set aslde. 8d/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge