AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 396 wordsS.K. Pande, J.
This revision u/s 26 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter be referred as Act) is directed against the order dated 30.9.2000 passed by Addl. District Judge, Beohari in E.P case No.4/2000.
Applicant Jaymanti filed her nomination for election to the post of President, Nagar Panchayat, Jaisinghnagar, which was reserved for woman of Scheduled Caste. Due to misprint of applicant''s gender i.e., male was wrongly typed instead of female in the voters list, nomination form was rejected. On completion of election, the result was declared and notified in the gazette dated 3.1.2000. Being aggrieved by the rejection of nomination, applicant filed petition u/s 20 of the Act challenging the election aforesaid. This petition was filed on 10.2.2000. As it was barred by 8 days time, application u/s 5 Limitation Act was also filed. The Court below while rejecting the application u/s 5 Limitation Act, vide impugned order dated 30.9.2000 has held that the delay in filing petition u/s 20 of the Act cannot be condoned. Therefore, the petition as presented was barred by 8 days time. Accordingly, it has been dismissed. The revision is mainly on the ground that where sufficient reason was shown for 8 days delay, the Court below ought not to have rejected the application.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the limitation would start from 10.1.00, however as stated the result was notified in Raj Patra dated 3.1.2000. Section 20(3) of the Act is as under:
(3) No petition presented under sub-section (2) shall be admitted unless
(1) it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the result of such election or (nomination) was notified in the Gazette;
Accordingly, the period of limitation commences from 3.1.2000, the date when the result of election was notified in M.P. Raj Patra and not from 10.1.2000 as has been argued. In Kamarlal Vs. Gorelal 1987 (II) MPWN 158 it has been held that election petition presented after 30 days cannot be entertained and delay if any cannot be condoned. District Judge trying election Petition u/s 20 is not a Civil Court it acts as persona designata. Provision of Section 5 Limitation Act is not applicable to election petition presented u/s 20 of the Act.
Accordingly, the Court below was right in dismissing the petition being time barred. The revision fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.