Ravindra Chourasia vs Ramashankar and Others

R.C. Mishra, J.

With consent, the matter is finally heard.

This revision, u/s 26(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''), has been preferred against order-dated 27.4.2011 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Khurai, Distt Sagar in Civil Suit No. 19-A/11, rejecting petitioner''s application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short'' Limitation Act''), for condonation of delay of only one day in filing of the petition calling in question election of respondent no. 1 to the seat of Councillor of Ward No. 14 in Municipal Council at Khurai. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mangu Ram Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and Shaik Saidulu @ Saida Vs. Chukka Yesu Ratnam and Others, , Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the election petition, presented u/s 20 of the Act.

In Hukumdev Narain Yadav Vs. Lalit Narain Mishra, , the Apex Court laid down the following guidelines -

Even in a case where the special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the Court to examine whether and to what extent the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation. What the Court has to see is whether the scheme of the special law, that is in this case the Act, and the nature of the remedy provided therein are such that the Legislature intended it to be a complete Code by itself which alone should govern the several matters provided by it. If on an examination of the relevant provisions it is clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded, then the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act.

Relevant excerpts of sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act read as under-

(3) No petition presented under sub-section (2) shall be admitted unless -

(i) it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the result of such election or nomination was notified in the Gazette; and

(ii) it is accompanied by a Government Treasury receipt showing a deposit of two hundred rupees, in the case of election or nomination to Municipal Councils and one hundred rupees in the case of election or nomination to Nagar Panchayats.

Accordingly, non-filing of the election petition under the Act within the prescribed period of limitation visits the penalty of the petition being dismissed. Thus, provisions of Limitation Act would not become applicable, even by virtue of Section 29(2) thereof, to an Election Petition under the Act, which itself is a self-contained Code.

Further, the Act does not contain any provision corresponding to Section 671 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, that formed basis of the decision rendered in Shaik Saidulu''s case (supra). For these reasons, none of the decisions cited at the bar is of any avail to the petitioner.

To sum up, Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the filing of an election petition under the Act. As an obvious consequence, no interference with the impugned order is called for under the revisional jurisdiction.

The revision, therefore, stands dismissed.