JUDGMENT
M.K. Sharma, J.
(1) In this election petition presented under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, the petitioner has challenged the election of the respondent to the House of the People from the Outer Delhi Lok Sabha Constituency. The petitioner seeks to challenge the election of the respondent on the ground of improper reception of the nomination paper of the respondent and commission of corrupt practice by him.
(2) It is stated in the election petition that the respondent was declared elected to the House of the People by the Returning Officer on 11.5.1996. The petition was presented by the petitioner in the Registry on 2.7.1996 at 2.15 p.m. On such presentation of an election petition, the Registry made a note indicating that the election petition is not within time. The election petition admittedly was accompanied by an application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Registry indicated in the aforesaid report that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. The Registry further indicated that the election petition has few other objections which were of the following nature:- “1.That Annexures should be verified by the Petitioner. 2. That Medical Certificate as mentioned at Serial No. 15 of the Index is not forthcoming. 3. Copy of the order dated 11.5.1996 passed by the Returning Officer should be filed. 4. That Affidavit should be filed according to prescribed form in support of allegation as per form 25 Rule 94(A) of the Representation of People Act. 5. The duplicate set for the service of respondent has not been page marked according to Index. 6. That the duplicate set should be verified by the Petitioner.”
(3) According to the provisions of Section 81 of the Act, an election petition has to be presented by the petitioner to the High Court within 45 days from the date of election. Section 67-A of the Act provides that the date on which a candidate is declared by the Returning Officer to be elected to a House of Parliament or of the legislature of the State shall be the date of election of that candidate.
(4) Therefore, the limitation prescribed by Section 81 of the Act for presentation of an election petition to the High Court by a petitioner would run from the date of declaration of the result of the election by the Returning Officer. Therefore, while computing the period of limitation of 45 days from the date of election in the present case, the election petition was to be presented on 29.6.1996 which was a working day. 30th June, 1996 was a Sunday and 1st July, 1996 was a Monday, which was also a working day for the High Court. The election petition, as stated above, came to be presented by the petitioner to the High Court on 2.7.1996 and was, therefore, admittedly barred by limitation. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the petition accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condensation of delay in filing-the election petition.
(5) The election petition was placed before this Court for necessary order. The issue, therefore, that arises for my consideration is whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Act for non- compliance of the provisions of Section 81 of the Act on the point of limitation.
(6) The counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before me that although the period of limitation for filing an election petition has been prescribed under the Act as within 45 days from the date of the election, but by virtue of provisions of Section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act become applicable even to an election petition and, therefore. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable and such an application having been filed by the petitioner, notice is required to be issued on the said application seeking for condensation of delay and that the election petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine.
(7) The counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bhakti Bh. Mondal Vs. Khagendra K. Bandopadhya and others reported in Air 196S Calcutta 69, wherein, it was held that by. virtue of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the said Act become applicable to the election petition and as such Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was applicable and in appropriate cases, the Court has power when sufficient cause is shown to admit an election petition after the prescribed period by condoning the delay. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and to arrive at the correct legal position, it would be necessary to extract the relevant provisions of Section 81 and Section 86(1) of the Act and also the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act:- “81.PRESENTATIONof petitions (1) An election 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 to the [High Court] by any candidate at such election or any 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 dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates]. 86-Trial of election petitions (1) The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 81 or section 82 or section 117. 29.Savings (2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.”
(8) From a bare reading of the provisions of Sections 81 and 86(1) of the Act, it is crystal clear that it is the mandate of the statute that an election petition has to be presented by the election petitioner to the High Court within 45 days from the date of election. If, however, an election petition is not presented within 45 days from the date of election, the said petition is liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Act for non-compliance of provisions of Section 81. Admittedly in the present case, the election petition was not presented by the petitioner within 45 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election.
(9) Now, it is to be examined as to whether the provisions of Section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to the facts of the present case. If the conclusion arrived at is that Section 29 of the Limitation Act is applicable then, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act which includes Section 5 of the Limitation Act would become applicable even to an election petition.
(10) As has been noticed earlier, a cogent reading of Section 81 and Section 86(1) of the Act in unqualified manner prescribes that an election petition if not presented within 45 days from the date of election, the same shall be dismissed by the High Court. The Representation of the People Act is a Special Act and has been held by the Supreme Court in _K. Venkateswara Rao Vs. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi that the said Act is a complete and self contained code. The provisions of Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act provides that when a special or local law provides for any suit, appeal or application, a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Limitation Act, it is the provisions in the special or local Act that will prevail and not the provisions of the Limitation Act except to the extent that Section 3 shall apply as if the period prescribed by the special or local law were the period prescribed by the Schedule to the Act and that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act shall apply only insofar as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. Accordingly, therefore, where a special or local law expressly provides that the provisions of the Limitation Act shall not apply to a proceeding under that special or local law, then Section 29(2) will not enable the Court to apply the provisions of the Limitation Act including Section 5 thereof. The aforesaid expression appearing in Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act came in for discussion and interpretation before the Supreme Court in Hnkunidev Narnin Yadav Vs. Lalit Narain Mishra, . It has been held by the Supreme Court in that decision that if the scheme of the special law and the nature of the remedy provided therein amount to a complete code in itself which alone is intended by the legislature to govern the matters provided in the special law then the provisions of the Limitation Act must be held to be necessarily excluded. In paragraph 17 of the said judgment the Supreme Court has observed thus:- “In our view, even in a case where the special law docs not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the Court to examine whether and to what extent the nature of those provisions or the na- ture 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 arc provided for in S. 86 of the Act which gives a peremptory command that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Ss. 81, 82 or 117. It will be seen that S. 81 is not the only section mentioned in Section 86, and if the Limitation Act were to apply to an election petition under S. 81 it should equally apply 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 while no such benefit is available in dismissing an application for noncompliance with the provisions of Sections 82 and 117 of the Act, or alternatively if the provisions of the Limitation Act do. not apply to Section 82 and Section 117 of the Act, it cannot be said that they apply to S. 81.”
(11) Finally, in paragraph 28 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has pronounced that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not govern the filing of the election petitions on their trial.
(12) With due respect to the learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court, I am therefore, unable to agree with the proposition laid down by his Lordship in the said case. Therefore, my categorical finding is that no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be presented seeking for condensation of delay in presenting an election petition under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act. The present election petition having been presented beyond the stipulated statutory period as prescribed under the provisions of Section 81 of the Act, the same is barred by limitation and Section 5 of the Limitation Act being not applicable to such an election petition, the present election petition, in my considered opinion, is. not maintainable and, therefore, liable to be dismissed, which I hereby do, but, without any cost.