Bombay High Court
Shahaji Nanai [email protected] ... vs Returning Officer 28 And 8 Ors on 9 March, 2022
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
4-EP3-2022.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ELECTION PETITION NO. 3 OF 2022
Shahaji Nanai Thorat @ Shahjirao
Dhonidba Thorat ...Petitioner
Versus
Returning Officer and ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Shahaji Nanai Thorat @ Shahjirao Dhonidba Thorat,
Petitioner-in-person, present.
SANTOSH
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
SUBHASH
KULKARNI DATED : 9th MARCH, 2022
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI ORDER:
Date: 2022.03.10
10:38:46 +0530
1. The petitioner, who contested Parliamentary Election 2019
from North-East Mumbai Constituency No.28, has preferred this
petition calling in question the election of respondent no.9 to
Loksabha from the said constituency. The result of the said
election was declared on 23rd May, 2019.
2. The instant petition is lodged on 25 th November, 2021. The
registry has raised objections, including, the bar of limitation
under the provisions contained in Section 81 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 ("the Act, 1951"), which
stipulates a period of 45 days, to call in question in the election,
from the date of the election of the returned candidate.
4-EP3-2022.DOC
3. Since the petitioner appears in person, pursuant to the
directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the petition came to be
assigned to this Court to hear the petitioner.
4. On the previous date, the petitioner was informed that
prima facie the petition seems to be barred by limitation, as
stipulated under Section 81 of the Act, 1951.
5. Today, the petitioner has tendered a compilation of
documents including judgments on which the petitioner intends
to rely upon.
6. Heard the petitioner-in-person.
7. On facts, there is no controversy. In the written notes of
arguments the petitioner fairly submits that the petition ought
to have been presented on 7th July, 2019, if the period of
limitation is reckoned from 23rd May, 2019. However, the
petitioner seeks the condonation of delay and determination of
the petition on merits on the ground that he had submitted an
application before the Legal Services Authority on 1 st July, 2019.
Time was consumed in preparing a petition. Eventually, a writ
petition was filed on 21st January, 2020. Later on, the said writ
petition was withdrawn. The petitioner claimed that the instant
petition was filed on 11th May, 2021.
4-EP3-2022.DOC
8. The petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of a
learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Pratik
Prakashbapu Patil vs. Maruti Mura Vagare and others 1 and a
Division Bench judgment in the case of Ashok Shankarrao
Chavan vs. Anil Trayambakrao Patil2. Both the judgments do
not advance the cause of the petitioner.
9. In the case of Pratik Patil (supra) wherein the exclusion of
period was sought on the count that the person, who filed the
election petition, had initially filed a public interest litigation,
the learned Single Judge, after adverting to the provisions of
Section 81 of the Act, 1951, and the governing precedents
observed that the position in law is absolutely clear that the
provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are not
applicable to the filing of election petition. The observations of
the learned Single Judge in paragraph 19 are relevant and
hence extracted below:
"19. Hence from a reading of the judgments cited on behalf
of the applicant, the position in law is absolutely clear that
the provisions of section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are
not applicable to the filing of an election petition. The Apex
Court has also made it clear that equity does not find a
place insofar as filing of the said petitions are concerned. In
my view the same would take care of the submission of the
Election Petitioner that since he was pursuing with the
authorities and had also filed a P.I.L., the delay should be
condoned. In the light of the aforesaid, the above
1 2012(5) Mh.L.J. 86.
2 1987 The Bombay Law Reporter, 39.
4-EP3-2022.DOC
Application for dismissal of the Election Petition would have
to be allowed and is accordingly allowed"
10. In the case of Ashok Chavan (supra) also, the position was
reiterated that the provisions contained in Sections 4 and 5 of
the Limitation Act do not apply to an election petition.
11. In this view of the matter, the petition which is clearly
barred by the period of limitation stipulated under Section 81 of
the Representation of the People Act, 1951, does not deserve to
be entertained.
12. Hence, the petition stands rejected.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
