{"id":98853,"date":"2008-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2"},"modified":"2016-09-20T10:36:38","modified_gmt":"2016-09-20T05:06:38","slug":"sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"Sukhbeer Singh vs Amarinder Singh on 9 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Sukhbeer Singh vs Amarinder Singh on 9 July, 2008<\/div>\n
CM No.5-E of 2007 in\nElection Petition No.22 of 2007                                  1\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                    CHANDIGARH.\n\n                                       CM No.5-E of 2007 in\n                                       Election Petition No.22 of 2007\n                                       Date of Decision: 9.7.2008\n\nSukhbeer Singh                                            .....Petitioner\n\n                                Vs.\n\nAmarinder Singh                                           ....Respondent\n                                ....\n<\/pre>\n
CORAM :      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA\n\n                                ****\n\n<\/pre>\n
Present :   Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. M.L. Saggar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.G.P. Vashisht,
\n            Advocate for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)<\/p>\n
C.M. No.5 E of 2007<\/p>\n
            Prayer in this application, filed under Section 5 of the<\/p>\n
Limitation Act, is to condone the delay of four days in the filing of the<\/p>\n
Election Petition.\n<\/p>\n
            Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the election<\/p>\n
petition was filed within limitation, the application for condonation of delay<\/p>\n
had to be filed, as the Registry raised an objection that the election petition<\/p>\n
is time barred. It is contended that the election petition was filed within the<\/p>\n
period of limitation, prescribed under Section 81(1)of the Representation of<\/p>\n
People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’). General Elections to<\/p>\n
the Punjab Vidha Sabha were held on 13.2.2007. As the result of the<\/p>\n
present election was declared on 27.2.2007, the limitation, for filing an<\/p>\n
election petition, as prescribed under the Act expired on 13.4.2007. The<\/p>\n
election petition was filed on 16.4.2007. The period of limitation, however,
\n CM No.5-E of 2007 in
\nElection Petition No.22 of 2007                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
stood extended to 16.4.2007, as the Punjab and Haryana High Court was<\/p>\n
closed for a spell of vacations from 9.4.2007 to 15.4.2007. The High Court<\/p>\n
reopened on 16.4.2007, on which date, the petitioner filed the election<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
             It is further submitted that the Additional Registrar (J), after<\/p>\n
scrutiny under Rule 14(a) of Chapter 4-GG, High Court Rules and Orders,<\/p>\n
Vol.V., incorrectly recorded a note that the election petition was barred by<\/p>\n
limitation. The relevant extract of the note reads as follows :-<\/p>\n
            1. An election petition is required to be filed within 45 days<\/p>\n
                from the date of declaration of result as provided in Section<\/p>\n
                81(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The result<\/p>\n
                was declared in this case on 27.2.2007 and 45 days have<\/p>\n
                expired on 13.4.2007 but it has been filed on 16.4.2007 i.e.<\/p>\n
                on 48th day. The High Court was closed w.e.f. 8th April, 7-<\/p>\n
                15th April 2007, due to a spell of holidays from 7-15th April.<\/p>\n
                However, the election branch as well as the Cash Branch of<\/p>\n
                this Hon’ble Court remained open upto 13.4.2007 for<\/p>\n
                receiving election petitions as limitation of filing the<\/p>\n
                petition was going to expire on 13.4.2007.”<\/p>\n
             It is argued that the note recorded by the Additional Registrar<\/p>\n
(J) that the limitation expired on 13.4.2007, as the election and cash<\/p>\n
branches remained open upto 13.4.2007, for receipt of election petitions, is<\/p>\n
incorrect, as it disregards a significant fact that the notification of holidays,<\/p>\n
the subsequent amendment thereto and the daily cause list, issued on the eve<\/p>\n
of the aforementioned spell of vacations by the Hon’ble High Court, does<\/p>\n
not state that election petitions could be filed and would be entertained by
\n CM No.5-E of 2007 in
\nElection Petition No.22 of 2007                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
the Registry of the Hon’ble High Court. The daily cause list, does not state<\/p>\n
that the election branch or the cash branch would be open for filing and<\/p>\n
receipt of election petitions nor does it identify a designated officer, who<\/p>\n
would receive election petitions, during this spell of vacations.<\/p>\n
             It is further contended that as per the notification of holidays,<\/p>\n
dated 6.12.2006, Annexure A-1, 9th to 13th April 2007 were local holidays,<\/p>\n
14th April 2007 was a holiday being Baisakhi\/B.R. Ambedkar’s Jayanti and<\/p>\n
15th April 2007 was a Sunday. The High Court, therefore, remained closed<\/p>\n
from 9th April 2007 to 15th April 2007. The period of 45 days, prescribed by<\/p>\n
Section 81(1) of the Act, expired on 13th April 2007, but the limitation for<\/p>\n
filing of an election petition, stood extended to 16th April 2007, in view of<\/p>\n
Section 10 of the General Clauses Act.\n<\/p>\n
             It is further submitted that the cause list issued on the eve of<\/p>\n
the vacations, Annexure A-4, makes a reference to             Habeas Corpus<\/p>\n
petitions, pre-arrest bail matters and such other urgent matters, if any,<\/p>\n
received during the aforesaid spell as may be permitted by the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Vacation Judge, through the Registry. The note does not state that the<\/p>\n
election branch or the cash branch would remain           open for receiving<\/p>\n
election petitions and does not identify a designated officer, empowered to<\/p>\n
receive election petitions during this spell of vacations. It is, therefore,<\/p>\n
urged that   the petitioner was     of the    bonafide opinion that election<\/p>\n
petitions could not be filed and would not be entertained during this spell<\/p>\n
of vacations and could, therefore, be filed on reopening of the High Court.<\/p>\n
The petitioner, therefore, filed his election petition on the reopening day<\/p>\n
on 16.4.2007.\n<\/p>\n
             It is further submitted that           Annexure A-3        dated\n CM No.5-E of 2007 in\nElection Petition No.22 of 2007                                 4<\/span>\n\n29.3.2007\/14.4.2007,    a notification issued to amend the notification of\n\n<\/pre>\n
holidays, issued after the result was declared, strangely enough does not<\/p>\n
state that election petitions can be filed during vacations. It is, therefore,<\/p>\n
submitted that as limitation for filing election petitions expired during<\/p>\n
vacations, the last day for filing the election petition would be extended to<\/p>\n
16.4.2007, in view of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act.<\/p>\n
            For the above submissions, the petitioner places reliance upon a<\/p>\n
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Simhadri Satya<\/p>\n
Narayana Rao V. M. Budda Prasad<\/a> 1994 Suppl (1) SCC 449,where it is<\/p>\n
emphasised, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering, a situation<\/p>\n
identical to the situation as obtains in the instant petition, held that as the<\/p>\n
Andhra Pradesh High Court was          closed for all purposes, except for<\/p>\n
applications of an urgent nature, the petitioner      was entitled to invoke<\/p>\n
Section 10 of the General Clauses Act to assert that the election petition<\/p>\n
though presented after 45 days, was within limitation. Reliance is also<\/p>\n
placed upon another judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely<\/p>\n
Hari Shanker Tripathi V. Shiv Harsh and others<\/a> , 1976(1) SCC 897.<\/p>\n
            Counsel for the petitioner also refers to Rule 11(ii) of Chapter<\/p>\n
4 of Part GG,Vol.V of the High Court Rules and Orders, to submit that as<\/p>\n
per the aforementioned rule, an election petition is to be presented to the<\/p>\n
Registrar during office hours on any working day. As 9th to 15th April 2007<\/p>\n
were not working days, the petitioner could not have presented the election<\/p>\n
petition, during this period. It is, therefore, prayed that as the election<\/p>\n
petition has been presented within limitation,the objections raised by<\/p>\n
Additional Registrar (J) be rejected and it be held that the election petition<\/p>\n
has been filed within limitation.\n<\/p>\n
 CM No.5-E of 2007 in
\nElection Petition No.22 of 2007                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
             Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, strongly refutes<\/p>\n
the correctness of the above submissions and argues that the application for<\/p>\n
condoning delay and the election petition           must be dismissed. The<\/p>\n
application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not maintainable<\/p>\n
as the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under the<\/p>\n
Representation of People Act. It is further submitted, by relying upon the<\/p>\n
Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, Vol.V Chapter 4, Part<\/p>\n
GG that an Election petition is to be presented before a designated officer<\/p>\n
and not before an Hon’ble Judge, as was the situation before the Andhra<\/p>\n
Pradesh High Court. The judgement         of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Simhadri Satya Narayana Rao (supra) would not, therefore, apply to the<\/p>\n
present case. As per the objections raised by the Additional Registrar (J),<\/p>\n
the election and the cash branches were open during vacations and an<\/p>\n
officer was available for receiving election petitions. It is further submitted<\/p>\n
that during this spell of vacations, 21 election petitions were filed upto 13th<\/p>\n
April 2007. It is further contended that the notification of holidays issued<\/p>\n
by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as also the note appearing in the<\/p>\n
cause list does not prohibit the filing of an election petition during the spell<\/p>\n
of vacations. The petitioner’s submission that he could only file the election<\/p>\n
petition on reopening is, therefore, incorrect.\n<\/p>\n
             It is further submitted that in view of the High Court Rules and<\/p>\n
Orders, the election branch       remains open throughout the year, more<\/p>\n
particularly, when a general election is announced. Election petitions are<\/p>\n
even entertained on a Sunday. The petitioner, therefore, cannot urge that he<\/p>\n
was misled by the absence of any note in the notification of vacations or in<\/p>\n
the cause list that election petitions could be received during vacations.
\n CM No.5-E of 2007 in
\nElection Petition No.22 of 2007                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
             Another argument pressed into service by counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent is that the note appearing in the cause list, issued a day prior to<\/p>\n
the vacations, clearly stipulates that urgent matters can be filed with the<\/p>\n
permission of the Hon’ble Vacation Judge, through the Registry. An election<\/p>\n
petition is always urgent and could have been filed after obtaining the<\/p>\n
permission of the Hon’ble Vacation Judge. This argument is sought to be<\/p>\n
fortified by reference to the fact that during the vacations, 21 election<\/p>\n
petitions were filed. It is, therefore, asserted that the petitioner’s negligence<\/p>\n
cannot be condoned by resort to the provisions of Section 10 of the General<\/p>\n
Clauses Act.\n<\/p>\n
             Another argument pressed into service, by counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent, is that the High Court Rules and Orders are a complete code in<\/p>\n
themselves and govern the receipt,        filing, scrutiny etc. of an election<\/p>\n
petition. For the petitioner to, therefore, contend that he was unaware that<\/p>\n
an election petition could be presented during the spell of vacations, is an<\/p>\n
attempt to misuse the provisions of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act.<\/p>\n
             I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the<\/p>\n
pleadings and the relevant documents.\n<\/p>\n
             Section 81(1) of the Act provides that an election petition shall<\/p>\n
be filed within 45 days of the declaration of the result of an election. The<\/p>\n
result, in the present case, was admittedly declared on 27.2.2007. The<\/p>\n
limitation, therefore, to file an election petition expired on 13.4.2007. The<\/p>\n
election petition was, however, filed on 16.4.2007. As noticed herein<\/p>\n
before as per Annexure A-1, dated 6.12.2006, the notification setting out<\/p>\n
holidays in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the public at large was<\/p>\n
informed, that the High Court would be closed from 9.4.2007 to 13.4.2007
\n CM No.5-E of 2007 in
\nElection Petition No.22 of 2007                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
for vacations. 14.4.2007 would be a holiday, on account of Baisakhi\/B.R.<\/p>\n
Ambedkar Jayanti and 15.4.2007 being a Sunday, the High Court would be<\/p>\n
closed. A relevant extract of the notification of vacations dated 6.12.2006<\/p>\n
(Annexure A-1) reads as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
            “No.350 Genl\/XVII.3 – It is hereby notified for general<\/p>\n
            information that the days enumerated in the schedule below<\/p>\n
            shall be observed as Holidays by the Punjab and Haryana High<\/p>\n
            Court at Chandigarh during the Calender Year, 2007 :-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            Sr.   Description        Date on     Day of the No.of\n            No.   of Holidays        which falls week       Holidays\n\n\n            XXX                      XXX                     XXX\n\n            11.   Good Friday      April 06      Friday          1<\/span>\n            12.   Baisakhi\/Dr.B.R.\n                  Ambedkar Jayanti April 14      Saturday        1\n\n            XXX                      XXX                     XXX\n\n                                LOCAL HOLIDAYS 2007\n\n            XXX                      XXX                     XXX\n\n            5.    April 9                        Monday              1<\/span>\n            6.    April 10                       Tuesday             1<\/span>\n            7.    April 11                       Wednesday           1<\/span>\n            8.    April 12                       Thursday            1<\/span>\n            9.    April 13                       Friday              1<\/span>\n\n            XXX                      XXX                     XXX\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
            The notification, unambiguously provides that 9th to 13th April<\/p>\n
2007 are local holidays, whereas 14.4.2007 is a holiday, on account of<\/p>\n
Baisakhi\/B.R. Ambedkar Jayanti and 15.4.2007 being a Sunday, the High<\/p>\n
Court would be closed. The High Court eventually re-opened on 16.4.2007,<\/p>\n
and the election petition was filed on 16.4.2007. The above notification
\n CM No.5-E of 2007 in
\nElection Petition No.22 of 2007                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
does not make any reference to any arrangement for work, much less urgent<\/p>\n
work to be taken up during vacations for obvious reasons. Work to be<\/p>\n
taken up during vacations is generally notified, in the cause list preceding a<\/p>\n
spell of vacations. Though, the notification amending the notification of<\/p>\n
holidays, was amended, after the declaration of election results, this<\/p>\n
notification dated 29.3.2007, published on 4.4.2007, notifying that<\/p>\n
21.4.2007 and 28.4.2007 would be Court working days, does not state that<\/p>\n
election petitions could be filed during the spell of vacations i.e. from 9th to<\/p>\n
15th April 2007 and does not disclose the nature of work to be assigned or<\/p>\n
entertained during vacations. The daily cause list issued on the eve of these<\/p>\n
vacations contains the following note, which reads as follows :-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             “During the ensuing holidays commencing from 6.4.2007 to<\/p>\n
             15.4.2007, the following officers with their respective staff are<\/p>\n
             put on duty to entertain Habeas Corpus Petitions from 6.4.2007<\/p>\n
             to 15.4.2007 and pre-arrest bail matters and such other urgent<\/p>\n
             matters, if any, received during the aforesaid spell as may be<\/p>\n
             permitted by His Lordship through Registry from 9.4.2007 to<\/p>\n
             13.4.2007 will be taken up by the Hon’ble Judge\/s.<\/p>\n
             Name of Officers :<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
             1.    Mrs.Tejinder Kaur Bakshi, Assistant Registrar<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             2.    Mr.R.S. Gill, Assistant Registrar (Civil & Judl)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             3.    Mr.R.S.Ratol, Deputy Registrar (Protocol)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             4.    Ms.Nirmal Kant, Deputy Registrar (Accounts)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             5.    Mrs.Suman Chopra, Deputy Registrar (Writ)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             6.    Mr.A.P. Khurana, Deputy Registrar (Groupings)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             7.    Mr.Ranjit Singh, Deputy Registrar (Establishment)
\n CM No.5-E of 2007 in
\nElection Petition No.22 of 2007                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             8.    Mr.M.P. Kohli, Assistant Registrar<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             9.    Mrs.Vijay Bhandair, Assistant Registrar”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Though the note makes a specific reference to Habeas Corpus<\/p>\n
Petitions, pre-arrest bail matters and urgent matters, it does not state that<\/p>\n
election petitions can be filed during vacations or that the election and cash<\/p>\n
branches would be open for receiving election petitions. Further more, the<\/p>\n
note does not identify, from the list of officers named, an officer designated<\/p>\n
to receive election petitions.\n<\/p>\n
             As general elections had concluded with the declaration of<\/p>\n
results and limitation for filing election petitions was to expire during this<\/p>\n
spell of vacations, the cause list was necessarily required to contain a note<\/p>\n
that   election petitions would be entertained during the spell of vacations,<\/p>\n
the election and cash branches would remain open and a named designated<\/p>\n
officer nominated to receive election petitions. In the absence of such a<\/p>\n
note, there was an error in cause list notifying the work to be taken up and<\/p>\n
the nature of the petitions to be entertained during this spell of vacations.<\/p>\n
              The question that now merits consideration is, whether the<\/p>\n
absence of any reference to the filing\/receipt of election petitions in the<\/p>\n
notifications Annexures A-1 and A-4 and in the daily cause list can be held<\/p>\n
to be sufficient to give rise to a bonafide belief, in a person of ordinary<\/p>\n
prudence, that election petitions, would not be entertained, during the spell<\/p>\n
of vacations and could therefore, be filed on reopening of the High Court.<\/p>\n
A considered appraisal of the notification of vacations, the amendment<\/p>\n
thereto and the note appearing in the cause list, lead me to a conclusion that<\/p>\n
a person of ordinary prudence could have been led to hold a bonafide belief
\n CM No.5-E of 2007 in
\nElection Petition No.22 of 2007                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
that election petitions would not be entertained, during the spell of<\/p>\n
vacations and could, therefore, be filed on reopening of the High Court.<\/p>\n
The fact that 21 election petitions were received during this spell of<\/p>\n
vacations or that an election petition may be entertained even on Sunday<\/p>\n
are therefore, entirely irrelevant. In my considered opinion, the petitioner<\/p>\n
was justified in his belief that the election petition could be filed on the<\/p>\n
reopening of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
            Though, the provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to<\/p>\n
proceedings under the Representation of People Act, Section 10 of the<\/p>\n
General Clauses Act, would come to the aid of the petitioner in the present<\/p>\n
situation. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act reads as follows :-<\/p>\n
                  “10. Computation of time – (1) Where, by any Central<\/p>\n
                  Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this<\/p>\n
                  Act, any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be<\/p>\n
                  done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day or<\/p>\n
                  within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or office is<\/p>\n
                  closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed<\/p>\n
                  period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done<\/p>\n
                  or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day<\/p>\n
                  afterwards on which the Court or office is open ;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                         Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to<\/p>\n
                  any act or proceeding to which the Indian Limitation Act,<\/p>\n
                  1877 (15 of 1877), applies.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (2)    This section applies also to all Central Acts and<\/p>\n
                  Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of<\/p>\n
                  January, 1887.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 CM No.5-E of 2007 in
\nElection Petition No.22 of 2007                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
             As per the provisions of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act,<\/p>\n
if limitation expires on a date, when the Court is closed, the limitation<\/p>\n
would stand automatically extended to the next working day and in the<\/p>\n
facts of the present case to the reopening of the Hon’ble High Court on<\/p>\n
16.4.2007.\n<\/p>\n
             In Simhadri Satya Narayana Rao (supra), the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court, while considering a similar controversy and after reiterating<\/p>\n
that the Limitation Act did not apply to the filing of election petition under<\/p>\n
the Representation of People Act, 1951 held as follows :-<\/p>\n
             “9. The first para of the notification, which is the operative part,<\/p>\n
             states that “the High Court of Andhra Pradesh will remain<\/p>\n
             closed for Sankranthi vacation, 1990 from Tuesday the 2nd<\/p>\n
             January to Friday the 12th January 1990 (both days inclusive)”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The notification nowhere states that the Registry of the High<\/p>\n
             Court would remain open. Notice to the effect that “the High<\/p>\n
             Court of Andhra Pradesh will remain closed” cannot be<\/p>\n
             understood by layman-litigant to mean that it would still be<\/p>\n
             open for filing purposes. After the operative part which<\/p>\n
             declares the closure of the High Court for Sankranthi vacation,<\/p>\n
             the subsequent paras specifically indicate the matters which<\/p>\n
             could be filed during the vacation. It is stated that two Hon’ble<\/p>\n
             Judges would be the vacation Judges for the specified period<\/p>\n
             and they would dispose of applications of urgent nature. The<\/p>\n
             designation of two Assistant Registrars as vacation officers and<\/p>\n
             the provision of notice of urgent applications to the vacation<\/p>\n
             officers a day earlier of sitting of the vacation Judges, goes to
\n CM No.5-E of 2007 in
\nElection Petition No.22 of 2007                                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
            show that the Registry was not functioning in the ordinary<\/p>\n
            course. A bare reading of the notification leaves no manner of<\/p>\n
            doubt that the Andhra Pradesh High Court remained closed for<\/p>\n
            all purposes except for applications of urgent nature for which<\/p>\n
            vacation Judges and vacation officers were designated. There<\/p>\n
            was no provision for filing of election petitions in the<\/p>\n
            notification and as such the filing of the election petition by the<\/p>\n
            respondents on reopening day of the High Court by invoking<\/p>\n
            Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, was justified.<\/p>\n
            11.   We do not agree with the contention of Mr.Sitaramiah<\/p>\n
            that in the absence of any bar in the notification the election<\/p>\n
            petitions under the Act can be filed during the vacations. It is<\/p>\n
            the vacation notification which has to be looked up to find out<\/p>\n
            whether the Registry is open for presenting the election<\/p>\n
            petitions. The notification in this case unmistakably stated that<\/p>\n
            the High Court would remain closed during Sankranthi<\/p>\n
            vacation. No reasonable person would knock the door of the<\/p>\n
            High Court during that period for filing an election petition.”<\/p>\n
                  A perusal of the above extract, leaves no manner of<\/p>\n
doubt that the controversy in the instant election petition is similar to the<\/p>\n
one in Simhadri Satya Narayana Rao (supra), and is, therefore, squarely<\/p>\n
covered by the ratio of aforementioned judgement. In the instant case, as<\/p>\n
also in the above case, the note appearing in the list issued on the eve of<\/p>\n
vacations did not contain any intimation that the Registry would be open<\/p>\n
for normal functioning and\/or election petitions could be filed and would be
\n CM No.5-E of 2007 in
\nElection Petition No.22 of 2007                                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
entertained during the spell of vacations. It was, therefore, held that the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, would apply and the<\/p>\n
election petition would be deemed to have been filed within limitation.<\/p>\n
              In the present case 9th to 13th April 2007 were vacations.<\/p>\n
14\/15th April 2007 were holidays, on which dates the Registry was<\/p>\n
completely closed. No separate order\/notification was issued that election<\/p>\n
petitions would be entertained during this spell of vacations. The election<\/p>\n
petition was filed on 16.4.2007 i.e. upon reopening of the High Court and it<\/p>\n
would, therefore, have to be held to be within limitation, by invoking the<\/p>\n
principle set out in Section 10 of the General Clauses Act.<\/p>\n
            As regards the respondent’s submission that during the period<\/p>\n
of vacations, 21 election petitions were entertained, the said assertion is<\/p>\n
irrelevant. Whether the Registry had a right to entertain the petitions during<\/p>\n
vacations or not and whether they were correctly entertained or not, would<\/p>\n
not, in the absence of any intimation that election petitions could be filed<\/p>\n
during the spell of vacations, exclude the operation of Section 10 of the<\/p>\n
General Clauses Act,1897 or alter the nature of notification Annexure A-1<\/p>\n
or the note appearing in the list issued on the eve of vacations.<\/p>\n
            Another submission by counsel for the respondent that Rule 6<\/p>\n
of Chapter 4-GG of Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders,<\/p>\n
provides that an election petition shall be presented within 45 days from the<\/p>\n
declaration of the result, in my considered opinion, would not oust the<\/p>\n
applicability of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act. Another submission<\/p>\n
that Rule 11(ii) of Chapter 4 of Part GG provides that an election petition<\/p>\n
shall be presented before the Registrar of this Court on any working day.<\/p>\n
The election petition could, therefore, have been presented, as the High
\n CM No.5-E of 2007 in
\nElection Petition No.22 of 2007                                 14<\/span><\/p>\n
Court was working, during vacations, merits rejection. The daily cause list<\/p>\n
does not state that the Registry would remain open during vacations for<\/p>\n
receiving election petitions. The note appearing in the cause list issued on<\/p>\n
the eve of vacations, clearly details the officers on duty, during vacations<\/p>\n
but does not refer to a officer designated to receive election petitions. The<\/p>\n
note does not set out specifically or by necessary inference, that the Registry<\/p>\n
would be open for normal filing of petitions, whatever be their nature. Any<\/p>\n
ambiguity in a notification providing information as to the working of a<\/p>\n
Court is likely to cause confusion and should, therefore, be specific as to<\/p>\n
the matters it seeks to inform.\n<\/p>\n
              As the notification Annexure A-1, the note in the cause list<\/p>\n
preceding vacations, Annexure A-4 do not specifically or by necessary<\/p>\n
inference, state that election petitions would be entertained during<\/p>\n
vacations, Section 10 of the General Clauses Act would come to the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s aid and limitation for filing an election petition would close on<\/p>\n
16.4.2007. The election petition filed on 16.4.2007 is, therefore,held to<\/p>\n
have been filed within limitation.\n<\/p>\n
             In view of what has been stated herein above, the application<\/p>\n
stands disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.7.2008                                           (RAJIVE BHALLA)\nGS                                                      JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Sukhbeer Singh vs Amarinder Singh on 9 July, 2008 CM No.5-E of 2007 in Election Petition No.22 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CM No.5-E of 2007 in Election Petition No.22 of 2007 Date of Decision: 9.7.2008 Sukhbeer Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Amarinder Singh ….Respondent …. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-98853","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSukhbeer Singh vs Amarinder Singh on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sukhbeer Singh vs Amarinder Singh on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-20T05:06:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sukhbeer Singh vs Amarinder Singh on 9 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-20T05:06:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":3648,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2\",\"name\":\"Sukhbeer Singh vs Amarinder Singh on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-20T05:06:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sukhbeer Singh vs Amarinder Singh on 9 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sukhbeer Singh vs Amarinder Singh on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sukhbeer Singh vs Amarinder Singh on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-20T05:06:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sukhbeer Singh vs Amarinder Singh on 9 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-20T05:06:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2"},"wordCount":3648,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2","name":"Sukhbeer Singh vs Amarinder Singh on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-20T05:06:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhbeer-singh-vs-amarinder-singh-on-9-july-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sukhbeer Singh vs Amarinder Singh on 9 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98853","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=98853"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98853\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98853"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98853"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98853"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}