The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 24. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ELPET No.29 of 2024 Jagabandhu Das (Dead) … Election Petitioner Mr. Sohan Mishra, Advocate (Counsel for the Applicant in I.As) -versus- Sanjib Kumar Mallick and others … Respondents Mr. G.K. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Assisted by Ms. S. Srivastava, Adv. (For Res. No.1) CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ORDER 09.10.2025 I.A. No.80 of 2025, I.A. No.81 of 2025 & I.A. No.82 of 2025 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. Sohan Mishra, learned Counsel for the Applicant, who prays to be substituted in place of the deceased Election Petitioner so also Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel, who represents the Respondent No.1. 3. In I.A. No.80 of 2025, a prayer has been made to substitute the Applicant-Petitioner in place of late Jagabandhu Das (the Original Election Petitioner). 4. In I.A. No.81 of 2025, a prayer has been made to condone the delay of 18 days in filing the application for substitution under Section 112(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, shortly, ‘the R.P. Act’. 5. Similarly, in I.A. No.82 of 2025, a prayer has been made to set aside the abatement as against the deceased Election Petitioner. 6. As required under Section 112(3) of the R.P. Act, the Application for substitution ought to have been filed within 14 days from the date of Gazette Notification dated 19.05.2025, published by the Director, Printing, Stationery and Publication, Odisha. However, I.A. No.80 of 2025 has been filed after about 32 days of such notification, which is after 18 days beyond the permissible limitation period of 14 days. 7. I.A. No.81 of 2025 has been filed to condone the delay taking a stand there in that, the Applicant was daily checking the Odisha https://egazette.odisha, gov.in/ the website e-gazette, i.e., more particularly the
Legal Reasoning
Extraordinary Gazette Archival from the High Court of Orissa column, to access the Gazette Notification which was ordered to be published at the earliest by this Court. The said Gazette Notification was not uploaded/published in the said Gazette website till 17.06.2025. On 18.06.2025, when the Applicant opened the Odisha e-gazette website, it was on that day the gazette notification was found to be uploaded. On the said date, the Applicant came to know about the fact regarding the gazette notification issued by the Registrar(Judicial) of this Court . Hence, the Applicant could not file the substitution application on or before 02.06.2025 due to non-publication of the gazette notification in Odisha e.gazzette website. Page 2 of 10
Legal Reasoning
8. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits, though the Applicant belongs to the same constituency and one of the valid voters, who was well aware of the death of the Election Petitioner, so also the order passed by this Court dated 12.05.2025, vide which Office was directed to take necessary steps to publish the fact regarding death of the Election Petitioner in the Official Gazette of the State Government at the earliest, he was waiting for such notification, to be made on the official website of the State Government i.e. e-gazettes. 8.1. Knowing about such order, the Applicant was consistently keeping track of the official website of the State Government so far as publications of e-Gazettes are concerned. The Gazette Notification published by the Director, Printing, Stationery and Publication, Odisha dated 19.05.2025 was e-Gazetted on 18.06.2025. Thereafter, the Applicant promptly filed the present application for substitution of the deceased Election Petitioner on 20th June, 2025. In fact, there is no delay in filing the application for substitution, as required under Section 112(3) of the R.P. Act. 9. Though, it has not been pleaded so in any of the I.As., during hearing, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Applicant-Petitioner, files photocopies of the Circular No.11434/OE, Bhubaneswar dated 02.04.2024 of the Government of Odisha, Home Department along with a copy of the Circular No.1210/Com. Bhubaneswar dated 14.03.2024 of the Page 3 of 10 Government of Odisha, Commerce and Transport (Commerce) Department, regarding use of e-Gazette portal, i.e., https://egazette.odisha, gov.in for Gazette publication after handing over copies thereof to the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1. 10. Relying on such Circulars, Mr. Mishra submits that the said Gazette Notification dated 19.05.2025 should have been e-gazetted promptly in the official website of the State Government, enabling the public at large to know about the contents of such notification and to approach this Court within the stipulated period for being substituted, as required under the said notification. 11. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.1, drawing attention of this Court to the provisions enshrined under Section 112 (2) of the R.P. Act submits, it is within the discretion of the High Court to publish the fact regarding abatement of the Election Petition on the death of the Election Petitioner, in such manner as it may deem fit. This Court, exercising its discretionary power, directed the Registry to take necessary steps for publication of the said fact in the Official Gazette of the State Government at the earliest, not in the e-Gazette portal. Hence, the Applicant-Petitioner was not justified in waiting for the e-Gazette publication of the said Gazette Notification on the official website of the State Government, when he was well aware of the death of the Election Petitioner and order of this Court regarding publication Page 4 of 10 of such fact in the Official Gazette of the State Government, i.e., The Gazette Notifications regularly published by the Office of the Director, Printing, Stationery and Publication, Odisha. 12. Learned Senior Counsel further submits, as the Applicant-Petitioner was well aware about the death of the Election Petitioner so also order dated 12.05.2025 of this Court, he could have promptly approached this Court by filing an appropriate application for substitution, instead of waiting for Gazette Notification, as ordered by this Court. 13. Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel further submits, the R.P. Act being a self-contained Code, law is well settled that the Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings under the said Act and any delay beyond fourteen days from the date of Gazette notification is not condonable. Accordingly, he prays to reject all the applications, i.e., application for condonation of delay, setting aside abatement and substitution. 14. To substantiate his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relies on paragraph Nos. 6.1, 6.2 and 7 of order dated 12.09.2025 passed in I.A. Nos.98 & 99 of 2025 and paragraph No.9 of the order dated 12.09.2025 passed in I.A. No.100 of 2025, which are arising out of present Election Petition No.29 of 2024. That apart, Mr. Agarwal cites the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 1577 (Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal Vrs. Shri Rajiv Page 5 of 10 Gandhi), which be kept on record. 15. At this juncture, Section 112 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, being relevant, is reproduced below for ready reference; 112. Abatement of election petitions.—(1) An election petition shall abate only on the death of a sole petitioner or of the survivor of several petitioners. (2) Where an election petition abates under sub- section (1), the High Court shall cause the fact to be published in such manner as it may deem fit. (3) Any person who might himself have been a petitioner may, within fourteen days of such publication, apply to be substituted as petitioner and upon compliance with the conditions if any, as security, shall be entitled to be so substituted and to continue the proceedings upon such terms as the High Court may deem fit. (Emphasis supplied) 16. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, as detailed above, so also legal provisions enshrined under Section-112(2) of the R.P. Act, before dealing with the points urged by the learned Counsel for the parties so also the judgments cited before this Court, it would be apt to reproduce below the relevant paragraph from the order dated 12.05.2025 passed in Election Petition No.29 of 2024, I.A. No.152 of 2024 and I.A. No.74 of 2025 for ready reference:- “8. In view of the death of the Election Petitioner, which has also been confirmed by the concerned I.I.C, Office is directed to take necessary steps to publish the said fact in the Official Gazette of the State Government at the earliest, indicating in the said notification that, any person Page 6 of 10 who might himself have been a Petitioner in the Election Petition may, within fourteen days of such publication, apply to this Court to be substituted as in Election Petition No.29 of 2024 Petitioner (Jagabandhu Das Vrs. Sanjib Kumar Mallick & Others,) failing which the Election Petitioner shall abate. 9. Copy of the said Gazette Notification be kept on record before the next date of listing.” (Emphasis Supplied) 17. From the aforesaid order, it is amply clear that this Court directed the Registry to take necessary steps to publish the said fact regarding death of the Election Petitioner in the Official Gazette of the State Government at the earliest, with further direction that it should be indicated in the said notification that any person, who might himself have been a Petitioner in the Election Petition may, within fourteen days of such publication, apply to this Court to be substituted as Petitioner in Election Petition No.29 of 2024. 18. Hence, this Court is of the view that, interpretation of the said order dated 12.05.2025 passed by this Court regarding mode of notification of the fact regarding death of the Election Petitioner, other than the mode, as was ordered by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2025, is inadmissible/unacceptable under law. 19. This Court is of further view that, the sole intent of the legislature, as enshrined under Section 112(2) & (3) of the R.P. Act, is to ensure that any person who might himself have been a Petitioner, is having information about the death of the Election Petitioner Page 7 of 10 so also filing of Election Petition, thereby enabling him/her to file appropriate application for substitution within fourteen days from the date of such notification. However, this provision does not impose an embargo on filing an application for substitution prior to such notification, where the interested and competent party has acquired knowledge about death of the Election Petitioner. 20. Admittedly, the present application for substitution has been presented on 20.06.2025, i.e., much after 14 days from the last date in terms of the said Notification. It is worthwhile to mention here that, during hearing, learned Counsel for the Applicant, who intends to be substituted in place of the deceased Election Petitioner, tried to demonstrate before this Court from the Government Portal, i.e., https://egazette.odisha, gov.in that the PDF file of the said Notification was created on 23.05.2025 and kept in the archive of the High Court of Orissa. 21. This Court is of the view that creation of a PDF file of a Gazette Notification and uploading/ keeping the said file in the archive meant for this Court on a particular date cannot be said to be the date of notification, as argued before this Court. 22. Even if, for the sake of argument, such date of creating the PDF file of the Gazette Notification dated 19.05.2025, published by the Director, Printing, Stationery and Publication, Odisha dated 19.05.2025 and preserving the same in the archive of the High Page 8 of 10 Court of Orissa in the e-Gazette portal is presumed to be the date of notification, i.e., 23.05.2025, and wide circulation of such notification, still the present application for substitution has been filed beyond the permissible period of limitation of 14 days from the date of such creation of PDF file, which is available in the archive of the Orissa High Court in the portal , i.e., https://egazette.odisha, gov.in. 23. The law is well settled that Election Petitions are special proceedings governed entirely by the provisions of the R.P. Act, and the Rules made thereunder. The Supreme Court in K.V. Rao v. B.N. Reddi, (1969) 1 SCR 679 held that, the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings like an Election Petition, as the Representation of the People Act is a complete and self-contained code, which does not admit of the introduction of the principles or the provisions of law contained in the Indian Limitation Act. In Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, (1974) 2 SCC 133, it was held that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to election petitions or to proceedings arising therefrom, unless specifically provided. 24. In Gurubux Singh Ahlubalia Vs. Sanatan Mahakud, reported in 2024 (III) ILR-CUT-539, this Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay so also Election Petition holding that even 1 day delay in presenting an Election Petition is not condonable. Hence, the application, i.e., I.A. No.81 of Page 9 of 10 2025 for condonation of delay of 18 days in filing of application for substitution under Section 112 (3) of the R.P Act stands dismissed. 25. As a consequence thereof, the application for setting aside abatement, i.e., I.A., No. 82 of 2025, so also application for substitution filed under Section 112 (3) of the R.P Act, i.e., I.A. No.80 of 2025, also stand dismissed. JUDGE ELPET No.29 of 2024 (S.K. MISHRA) 25. 1. Since no application for substitution could be filed within 14 days of the Gazette Notification dated 19.05.2025, the Election Petition stands abated in view of the death of the Election Petitioner. 2. Office is directed to communicate the substance of this order to the Election Commission and the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly at the earliest, so also an authenticated copy of this order to the Election Commission, in terms of Section 103 of the R.P. Act, read with Rule 16, under Chapter-XXXIII of the High Court of Orissa Rules, 1948. (S.K. MISHRA) JUDGE Mona Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MONALISA SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Oct-2025 17:28:48 Page 10 of 10