Citation : 2002 Local Law (CG) 61
The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside the need for a condonation order in an election challenge from Bhilai after finding the petition itself was filed within the statutory window. The dispute arose from a contest over a municipal council seat for Ward No. 2, Charoda, where an election petition was presented to challenge the declared result.
Under the municipal law at issue, a challenge must be brought within 30 days of the date when the election result is published in the official Gazette. The notification in this case appeared on June 28, 2000, and the petition was lodged exactly one month later, on July 28, 2000. The lower court had nevertheless allowed a separate application seeking condonation of delay. On review, the High Court focused on how the 30-day period should be computed and relied on established law that excludes the first day of a statutory period when the word “from” marks the starting point.
Applying that principle, the court concluded that the Gazette date should not be counted when calculating the thirty days. With the opening day excluded, the petition filed on July 28 fell squarely within the permitted period. Because the petition itself met the limitation requirement, the question of condoning any delay did not arise. The High Court disposed of the revision and awarded costs.
The decision draws directly on established interpretive rules that ensure parties get the full statutory window to prepare and present election challenges when a result is notified late in the day or when timing could otherwise work against the petitioner. For practitioners and candidates, the ruling is a useful reminder to calculate limitation periods carefully and to remember that a challenge filed on the day that completes the statutory period can be within time when the opening day is excluded.
Case Details : Civil Revision No. 441 of 2001, Santoshi vs. Kirti Sahu and Ors. (03.10.2002)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Prashant Mishra, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Sunita Jain, Adv. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 and Sharmila Singhai, Dy. Govt. Adv. for the Respondent No. 2/State
Acts/Rules/Orders:
General Clauses Act 1897 – Section 9; Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5; Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 – Section 20, Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 – Section 20(3); Representation Of The People Act, 1951 – Section 81(1)
Cases Referred:
Tarun Prased Chatterji v. Dinanath Sharma, (2000) 8 SCC 649
======
आवेदनकर्ता द्वारा विलंब की क्षमा के लिए सीमाबंदी अधिनियम, 1963 की धारा 5 के अंतर्गत आवेदन प्रस्तुत किया गया था। उक्त आवेदन को निचली अदालत ने स्वीकार कर लिया, जिसके विरुद्ध पुनरीक्षण (Revision) दायर किया गया।
निर्णय: उच्च न्यायालय ने यह पाया कि निर्वाचन याचिका स्वयं ही सीमाबंदी अवधि के भीतर दायर की गई थी, इसलिए धारा 5 के अंतर्गत दायर विलंब क्षमा आवेदन पर विचार करने की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं थी। जब याचिका निर्धारित समय सीमा के भीतर प्रस्तुत की गई है, तो विलंब क्षमा का प्रश्न ही उत्पन्न नहीं होता। अतः, पुनरीक्षण को निपटाया गया।
