Holding

The election petition was barred by limitation because the November 27, 1995 notification’s exception that the court was not closed for election petitions during summer vacations remained effective and was not displaced by the later May 27, 1996 notification.

Summary

The appellant filed an election petition on July 1, 1996, the first day after the Punjab and Haryana High Court resumed from its summer vacation, although the 45‑day limitation period had expired during the vacation. The High Court, relying on a November 27, 1995 notification that the court was not "closed" for election petitions during vacations, dismissed the petition as time‑barred. The appellant argued that a later May 27, 1996 notification, which omitted any exception, and Section 23‑A of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, should allow filing on the reopening day. The Supreme Court, referring to the earlier decision in Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal, held that the November 1995 notification’s exception remained controlling and was not superseded by the later notification; thus the petition was barred by limitation. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

Whether the filing of an election petition is time‑barred when the limitation period expires during the High Court's summer vacation, given a notification stating the court is not "closed" for such petitions.
Whether a subsequent notification lacking an explicit exception can override an earlier notification that contains an exception.
Whether Section 23‑A of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act affects the status of the court for election petition filings during vacations.
Application of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the notifications.

Legislation cited

General Clauses Act, 1897s. 10
High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954s. 23-A
Limitation Act, 1963s. 5
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 81(1)

Subjects

election petitionlimitation periodsummer vacationhigh court notificationRepresentation of the People ActGeneral Clauses ActLimitation ActHigh Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Actprocedural law

Judgment

MOHD. ALI A
v.
AZAD MOHD.

SEPTEMBER 1, 1999

[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND B
R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.]

Representation of the People Act, 1951:

S.81 (1)-Election-Election Petition-Limitation for filing-Election C
petition filed in Punjab' and Haryana High Court on reopening of summer
vacations-Period oflimitation expired during summer vacation-Notification
of High Court dated 27.11.1995 mentioning that for purpose of hearing
election petitions the Court was not "closed" during the summer vacations-
Held, election petition was barred by time because of the exception contained D
in the Notification itself-General Clauses Act, 1897-S.10-High Court
Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954-8.23-A-Limitation Act, 1963-
S.5.

Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal & Ors., Suppl. (2) SCR 174, relied
on.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 445 of
1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.97 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in E.P. No. 24of1996. p
B.S. Malik, Altaf Hussain and Dr. K.S. Chauhan for the Appellant.

J.S. Attri and S. Khan for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
The election petition filed by the appellant challenging the election of
the respondent was dismissed by the learned Election Judge of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana on the preliminary issue of limitation without
trial on 4th July, 1997. The order of the High Court has been put in issue
before us through this appeal.
199 H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A The facts are not in dispute. The period of 45 days prescribed for filing
an election petition expired during the period of summer vacations of the High
Court i.e., June 1, 1996 to June 30, 1996 (both days inclusive). The election
petition was admittedly filed on the re-opening day of the High Court after
the summer vacations on July 1, 1996. The learned Election Judge considered '\-

the effect of Notification dated .27th of November, 1995 issued by the High
B Court and held that the election petition filed on the re-opening day of the
High Court was barred by time because for the purpose of hearing election
petitions etc., the court was not "closed" during the summer vacations~

In Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8343/
C 97 decided on September l, 1999, this Court has considered the effect of the
very same Notification dated 27th November, 1995 on, the filing of an election
petition on the re-opening day of tlie High Court after summer vacations,
when the prescribed period of limitation expired, during the summer vacations.
After ~king note of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act
r_
as well as Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, this _Court has come
D to the conclusion that the election petition, was barred by time, because of~
the exception contained in the Notification itself. The opinion expressed in the
said case applies to this case with full force. We adopt the reasoning given
by the Bench in Lachhman Das Arora 's case (supra) to this case also.

E Faced with this situation, Mr. B.S. Malik, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submitted that another Notification had been issued by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on 27th May,. 1996 and
since the later Notification did not contain any exception, the benefit of
Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, would be available to an election
petitioner for filing the election petition on the re-opening day of the High
F Court after summer vacations. The Notification dated 27th May, 1996 on
which reliance is placed reads thus:

"No. 207/Genl. XVII. 3. - It is notified for general information that High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh shall observe summer
vacations from 1st June to 30th June, 1996 (both days inclusive) and
G following timings shall.be observed during the period of vacation i.e.,
1st June, 1996 to 30th June, 1996.
"
Court timings: 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. with lunch break from 1.00
p.m. to 1.45 p.m.

Office timings: 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. With lunch break from 1.30
MOHD. ALI v. AZAD MOHD. 201
p.m. to 2.00 p.m. A
By order of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice and Judges

l (Sd)
Assistant Registrar (General)
For Registrar" B
In our opinion, reliance on this Notification to save the period of
limitation is misplaced. The Notification of 27th May, 1996 (supra) does not
in any manner supersede the Notification issued by the High Court earlier on
27th November, 1995. The Notification dated 27th May, 1996 has to be read
as supplementary to the Notification dated 27th November, 1995 because in C
the latter Notification court timings and office timings during the summer
vacations have been prescribed. The effect of the Notification dated 27th
November, 1995 has in no way been whittled down by the subsequent
Notification dated 27th May, 1996 and on the contrary, the subsequent
Notification, by prescribing the court and office timings, has clarified the D
manner in which the court business was to be transacted during the summer
vacations. Both the _Notifications have, therefore, to be read together.

Mr. Malik then submitted that under Section 23-A of the High Court
Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 every High Court shall have vacation
or vacations for such period or periods as may from time to time be fixed and E
during the period of vacations the Court would not be considered as 'open'
for any purpose. There is a basic fallacy .in the argument. These provisions
have nothing to do with the functioning of the High Courts. The transaction
of court business during the vacations is not controlled by the High Court
Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, but by the Notification issued by
the High Court in that behalf. F
For all that we have said above, we find there is no merit in this appeal.
The same is dismissed with costs.

RP. Appeal dismissed.