Simhadri Satya Narayana Rao vs M. Budda Prasad And Ors on 21 December, 1990

           PETITIONER:
SIMHADRI SATYA NARAYANA RAO

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
M. BUDDA PRASAD AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/12/1990

BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

CITATION:
 1990 SCR  Supl. (3) 701  1994 SCC  Supl.  (1) 449
 1990 SCALE  (2)1302


ACT:
    Election  Law: Representation of the People	 Act,  1951.
Section	 81  and 86--Election petition--Filing	on  the	 re-
opening	 day  of the High  Court  after	 vacation--Statutory
period	of 45 days over during the vacation--Whether  liable
to be dismissed under section 86 of the Act?
    Notification dated 29. 12. 1989 issued by the High Court
notifying  the Sankranthi vacation--Its	 interpretation	 and
scope--No distinction can be made between the court and	 the
office	(Registry)--Manner and extent of functioning  during
the  vacation--Whether	in the light of the wording  of	 the
notification,  the High Court remained closed  between	2.1.
1990 and 12.1.1990 so as to enable the election	 petitioners
to invoke Section 10 of the General Clauses Act.



HEADNOTE:
    The	 appellant had contested for the assembly seat	from
Avinagoda constituency and declared elected on November	 26,
1989 to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. An election
petition  calling in question his election was fried by	 the
respondents  in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the	 re-
opening day of the Court after Sankranthi vacation on  Janu-
ary  15,  1990. As the statutory period	 of  fortyfive	days
under  section	81 of the Act had expired during  the  vaca-
tions,	the appellant moved an application praying for	dis-
missal of the election petition, inter alia on the ground of
limitation.  It	 was contended that the	 Registry  was	open
during this vacation, two Assistant Registrars were on duty,
urgent applications were disposed of by the vacation  judges
and  in	 fact 25 election petitions were filed	during	this
period.	 The  High Court rejected all  the  contentions	 and
dismissed  his application and relying on Section 10 of	 the
General	 Clauses Act held that filing of the Election  Peti-
tion  on the re-opening day of the Court was within  limita-
tion. The correctness of the decision of the High Court	 has
been  challenged by the successful candidate in this  appeal
by  special leave. Affirming the judgment of the High  Court
and dismissing the appeal, this Court,
    HELD:  Sections  4 and 5 of the Limitation Act  have  no
application  to the election petitions under  Representation
of the People Act. The benefit
702
Of  Section  10 of the General Clauses Act can	however,  be
availed to have limitation saved under the Act. [704D]
    The notification dated December 29, 1989 nowhere  stated
that  the Registry would remain open. A bare reading of	 the
said notification leaves no manner of doubt that the  Andhra
Pradesh	 High Court remained closed for all purposes  except
for applications of urgent nature for which vacation  judges
and  vacation officers were designated. There was no  provi-
sion  for filing of Election Petitions in  the	notification
and  as	 such  the filing of the election  petition  by	 the
respondents on re-opening day of the High Court by  invoking
Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, was justified.  There
is no infirmity in the reasoning and the conclusions reached
by the High Court. [706C, 708C]
    Hukumdev  Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, [1974]  3
SCR  31;  Hari Shanker Tripathi v. Shiv	 Harsh	and  Others,
[1976]	U.J. (S.C.) 242 and H.H. Raja Harinder Singh  v.  S.
Karnail Singh, [1957] S.C.R. 208, followed.



JUDGMENT: