DANDA RAJESHWARIversusBODAVULA HANUMAYAMMA AND ORS.

                     DANDA RAJESHWARI                                                A
                             v.
               BODAVULA HANUMAYAMMA AND ORS.

                                  JULY 30, 1996

              [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                                 B

       Election Law:

     A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunal) in respect of Gram
Panclwyats, Manda/ Pwishads and Zilla Pwishads Rules, 1995:                          C
        Rule I-Election of Swpanch-Declaration of result of the Elec-
tion-Election petition-Limitation-W1it petition filed in High Cozut chal-
lenging the election of the retumed ca11didate-High Cozut dec/i11ed to go into
the disputed questio11s of fact and obse1ved that petitio11ers may file election
petitio11 within three weeks of the disposal of the writ petitio11 and if such       D
electio11 petition is filed, Electio11 T1ibu11al shall e11te1tain the same without
going into the questio11 of limitatio11-He/d, High Cowt lightly gave the
directions.

       Constitution of India, 1950 :
                                                                                     E
       A1tic/e 226-Wiit petitio11 challenging electio11 of Sarpanch--High Court
decli11ed to i11vestigate into the disputed questions of facts a11d directed that
it would be open to the petitionen to file an e/ectio11 petition as provided by
Rule 3 of the A.P. Panchayats Raj Electio11 T1ibz111al, in respect of Gram
Panclzayats, Ma11dal Parishads and Zilla Pwishads Rules, 1995, and if such
election petition is filed the Election T1ibwzal would decide the same on
                                                                                     F
mC1its without going into the questio11 of limitation. Held, High Court was
1ight in giving the directions.

       Union of l11dia & Anr. v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd., (1996) 4
SCALE 317, distinguished.                                                            G
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 1368 of 1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3.96 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.P. No. 13557 of 1995.                                                H
                                 169
    170                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A         L.N. Rao and S. Uday Kumar Sagar for the Petitioner.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           The only question raised in this case is : whether the direction issued
    by the High Court in the impugned order to file the Election Petition within
B   three weeks from the date of the disposal of the writ petition and after
    filing of the petition to dispose of the same, without going into the question
    of limitation is valid in law ? The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the
    impugned order dated June 26, 1995 in Writ Petition No. 11106 of 1995
    and batch observed as follows :

c            "We are not inclined to go into the questions raised in this Writ
             Petition. The appropriate form is the Election Tribunal. It is open
             to the petitioners to ftle an election petition within three weeks
             from today and if such an petition is filed, the same shall be
             entertained by the Election Tribunal without going into question
D            of limitation and disposed it of in accordance with law as ex-
             peditiously as possible, in any event not later than four months
             from the date of filing of the Petition. No costs.

          Shri B. Nageshwara Rao, counsel for the petitioner placing reliance
    on Rule 3 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunal) in respect of
E   Gram Panchayats and Manda! Parishads and Zila Parishad Rules, 1995
    (for short, the 'Rule') contended that the rules contemplate filing of an
    Election Petition within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result
    of the election. It reads as under :

             "3(1) The election petition shall be presented within thirty days
F            from the date of the declaration of result of the election.

                 Explanation : If the Court of the Subordinate Judge or the
             District Munsiff, as the case may be or the Officer of the Office
             of the Govern1nent who i~ the Election Tribunal is closed on the
             last day of the thirty days aforesaid, the petition may be presented
G
             to be Election Tribunal on the next day afterwards on which such
             Court or Tribunal is open.

             (ii) The petition shall contain a statement in concise from, the
             material facts on which the petitioner relies and the particulars of
H            any corrupt practices which he alleges and shall, where necessary,
            DANDARAJESHWARI v. BODAVULAHANUMAYAMMA                          171

            he alleges and shall, where necessary, be divided into paragraphs A
            numbered consecutively. It shall be signed by the petitioner and
            verified in the manner prescribed for the verification of pleadings
            in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."

           The remedy is statutory remedy and limitation is one of the condi-
                                                                                    B
    tions to entertain election petition. By judicial order the limitation cannot
    be nullified. Jn support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment of this
    Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd., (1996) 4
    SCALE 317. We find no force in his contention. It is not his case that the
    High Court lacks Jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the
    election of a Sarpanch and declaration of the result of the election of a      c
    Sarpanch, etc. The High Court exercising its power under Article 226 of
    the Constitution declined to interfere in the election disputes since alter-
    native remedy of filing election petition and adjudication has been provided
    in the relevant statutory rules. Far from saying that the High Court has no
    jurisdiction, High Court exercised self restraint in exercise of the power D
    under Article 226 and directed the parties to avail of alternative remedy.
    In this case, admittedly, the elections of Sarpanch was held and result was
    declared on June 24, 1995 and the writ petition was filed on June 25, 1995.
    Power of the Government on the process of electoral rolls was challenged
    in a batch of writ petitions. The writ petition in question is also one of such
    writ petitions. Under the circumstances, the High Court thought it ex- E
    pedient that since elections were already held, the disputed questions of
    facts would be canvassed in an election petition as provided in Rule 3 of
    the Rules, the High Court rightly declined to investigate into disputed
    question of facts and refused to go into the question relegating the parties
    to pursue the remedy of election dispute. In view of this the High Court p
    has rightly directed filing of the election petition within three weeks from
    the date of disposal of the writ petition and further directed the Tribunal
'   not to go into the question of limitation and instead decide the matter on
    merits. This Court in Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. 's case held as under :

            11
                 According to these sub-sections, a claim for refund or an order   G
            of refund can be made only in accordance with the provisions of
            Section 27 which inter alia includes the period of limitation men-
            tioned therein. Mr. Hidayatullah submitted that the period of
            limitation prescribed by Section 27 does not apply either to a suit
            filed by the importer or to a writ petition filed by him and that in H
    172                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A           such cases the period of limitation would be three years. Learned
            counsel refers to certain decisions of this Court to that effect. We
            shall assume for the purposes of this appeal that it is so, not-
            withstanding the fact that the said question is now pending before
            a larger Constitution Bench of nine Judges along with the issue
            relating to unjust enrichment. Yet the question is whether it is
B
            permissible for the High Court to direct the authorities under the
            Act to act contrary to the aforesaid statutory provision. We do not
            think it is, even while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution.
            The Power conferred by Article 226/227 is designed to effectuate
            the law, to enforce the Rule of law and to ensure that the several
c           authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law. It
            cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to
            law. In particular, the Customs authorities, who are the creatures
            of the Customs Act, cannot be directed to ignore or act contrary
            to Section 27, whether before or after amendment. May be the
            High Court or a Civil Court is not bound by the said provisions
D
            but the authorities under the Act. are. Nor can there be any
            question of the High Court clothing the authorities with its power
            under Article 226 or the power of a civil court. No such delegation
            or conferment can ever be conceived. We are, therefore-, of the
            opinion that the direction contained in clause (3) of the impugned
E           order is unsustainable in law. When we expressed this view during
            the hearing Mr. Hidayatullah requested that in such a case the
            matter be remitted to the High Court and the High Court be left
            free to dispose of the writ petition according to law.

    The ratio of the said decision has no bearing to the facts of this case.
F Therein, rules prescribed limitation to claim refund and the application was
    filed after limitation. The High Court had directed refund ignoring the
    limitation. Jn that context, it was held that no direction or mandamus could    '
    be issued to the authorities for disobeying the law.

           The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
G
    R.P.                                                      Petition dismissed.