Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an election petition under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994, filed beyond thirty days from declaration of results after withdrawal of an earlier petition, could be saved by Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963.
Analysis: Section 176 prescribed a mandatory period of thirty days for presenting an election petition and contained no provision for condonation or extension of limitation. The statutory scheme governing election disputes was treated as a complete code, and the right to challenge an election being purely statutory, strict compliance with the prescribed limitation was required. In that setting, Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 stood excluded. Withdrawal of the earlier petition with liberty to file afresh could not override the statutory bar, and a fresh petition filed after expiry of the limitation period remained incompetent.
Conclusion: The election petition was barred by limitation and was liable to be dismissed; the contention based on Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The statutory time limit for election petitions under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 is mandatory and cannot be enlarged by resort to the Limitation Act 1963.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special election statute prescribes a self-contained limitation period and does not provide for extension or condonation, the general provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 do not apply.