Pet it ioner v. Ret urning Officer, Urban Locak Bodies Elect ion

Mayor/ Corporat or can be challenged. The forum for m aking such challenge, t he period of lim it at ion for filing elect ion pet it ion and also t he form of t he elect ion pet it ion are prescribed in t he said Act . Sect ion 61 and 1 66 of t he Act , which are relevant for deciding t his writ pet it ion, are ext ract ed below: “ 6 1 . Qu e st i o n i n g o f e l e ct i o n o f M a y o r o r De p u t y M a y o r .- ( 1) The elect ion of a person as Mayor or Deput y Mayor m ay be quest ioned by any unsuccessful candidat e or by any person whose nom inat ion paper was rej ect ed or by any m em ber of t he Corporat ion by present ing a pet it ion t o t he Dist rict Judge exercising j urisdict ion in t he Cit y on anyone or m ore of t he grounds m ent ioned in Sect ion 71. ( 2) The pet it ion shall be present ed wit hin seven days of t he declarat ion of t he result of elect ion. t o b e 6 6 . Pe t i t i o n w h e n d i sm i sse d .- I f an elect ion pet it ion has not been present ed wit hin t he t im e allowed by t his Act or it does not com ply wit h any provisions m ade under Sect ion 79 relat ing t o deposit of securit y or t he necessary court - fee payable t hereon is not furnished wit hin t he t im e allowed t herefor it shall fort hwit h be rej ect ed by t he Dist rict Judge.”

3. Perusal of Sect ion 61 of t he aforesaid Act reveals t hat t he lim it at ion prescribed for filing elect ion pet it ion for challenging elect ion of a Mayor is only seven days from t he dat e of declarat ion of result of elect ion. There is no provision for condonat ion of delay.

4. Sect ion 66 of t he Act unequivocally provides t hat if elect ion pet it ion is not present ed wit hin t he t im e prescribed by t he Act , t hen it shall fort hwit h be rej ect ed by t he Dist rict Judge.

5. Adm it t edly, t he result of t he elect ion of Mayor was declared on 25.1.2025 and t he elect ion pet it ion was filed by t he pet it ioner on 6.2.2025. Since 2 t he lim it at ion prescribed is seven days, t herefore, elect ion pet it ion would have been wit hin t im e up t o

1.2.2025. Thus, t here was delay of five days in filing t he elect ion pet it ion.

6. Hon’ble Suprem e Court , it s j udgm ent rendered on 4.9.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 6848 of 2015, Sm it a Subhash Sawant v. Jagdeeshwari Jagdish Am in & Ot hers, held as under: t im e ignore cannot “ 30. I t is a set t led principle of rule of int erpret at ion t hat t he Court cannot read any words which are not m ent ioned in t he Sect ion nor can subst it ut e any words in place of t hose m ent ioned in t he sect ion and at t he sam e t he words m ent ioned in t he sect ion. Equally well set t led rule of int erpret at ion is t hat if t he language of st at ut e unam biguous t hen t he words of st at ut e have t o be int erpret ed by giving t hem t heir nat ural m eaning. [ See. I nt erpret at ion of st at ut e by G.P. Singh 9 t h Edit ion page 44/ 45] . Our int erpret at ion of Sect ion 33 ( 1) read wit h Sect ion 28 ( k) is in t he light of t his principle. sim ple, plain,

31. We accordingly, hold t hat t he list prescribed under Sect ion 28( k) was available for inspect ion and sale t o t he vot ers of t he ward in quest ion on 17.02.2012. I n view of t his finding, t he lim it at ion t o file elect ion 17.02.2012 and it will be up t o 27.02.2012. I n ot her words, period of lim it at ion of 10 days prescribed for filing t he elect ion pet it ion in Sect ion 33( 1) of t he Act would begin from t o 17.02.2012 27.02.2012. it would pet it ion

32. I t was, t herefore, necessary for respondent No. 1 ( elect ion pet it ioner) t o have filed t he elect ion pet it ion on any day bet ween 17.02.2012 t o 27.02.2012. Since t he elect ion pet it ion was filed on 28.02.2012, a dat e beyond 27.02.2012, it was liable t o be dism issed as being barred by lim it at ion. I n t he absence of any provision m ade in t he Act 3 for condoning t he delay in filing t he elect ion pet it ion, t he Chief Judge had no power t o condone t he elect ion lim it at ion pet it ion beyond prescribed in law. I ndeed, no such argum ent was advanced by t he learned counsel for respondent No. 1 in t his regard.” t he period of t he delay filing

7. I t is com m on knowledge t hat elect ion pet it ions have t o be filed wit hin lim it at ion period specified in relevant st at ut es and t here is no provision for condonat ion of delay. Provisions of Lim it at ion Act do not apply t o elect ion pet it ions. Thus learned Dist rict Judge was j ust ified in holding t hat provisions of Lim it at ion Act would not be applicable for condoning t he delay.

8. This Court do not find any reason t o int erfere wit h t he order im pugned in t he writ pet it ion. Writ pet it ion t hus fails and is dism issed. However, pet it ioner shall be at libert y t o assail t he legalit y of t he provision, regarding lim it at ion period provided filing elect ion pet it ion, before appropriat e forum .

14.8.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957B E53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 4