1    

REPORTABLE    

                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO   8337     OF 2018   (Arising out of SLP (C) No 24000 of 2017)  

SUMAN DEVI              .....  APPELLANT     

Versus   

MANISHA DEVI AND ORS       .....  RESPONDENTS       

J U D G M E N T  

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J  

1  The appellant and the first respondent contested elections for the post of  

Ward Councilor, from Ward No 18 of the District Council of Mahendergarh. The  

results of election were declared on 28 January 2016. The appellant was declared  

to be the elected candidate.  On 10 February 2016, the first respondent filed an  

Election Petition namely, Civil Suit 9/2016 (CS 1086/2016) under Section 176 of

2    

the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 challenging the election of the appellant.   

Upon service of the election petition, the appellant filed an application under Order  

7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the petition on the ground that the first  

respondent had failed to present it in person as required by Section 176.  Notice  

was issued on the application. The respondent filed her reply.  On 1 March 2016,  

the first respondent moved an application for withdrawal of the election petition.   

The application was allowed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division on the same day  

and the first respondent was permitted to withdraw the election petition with liberty  

to institute a fresh petition. Subsequently on 2 March 2016 the first respondent  

filed a second election petition, Civil Suit 361/2016(CS 1106/2016). The appellant  

filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the election petition on  

the ground that it was barred by limitation.  An application was thereupon filed by  

the first respondent purportedly under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the  

Limitation Act submitting inter alia that if the limitation for filing the election petition  

had expired, the period spent between the filing of the earlier petition and its  

withdrawal may be excluded since the first respondent was bona fide espousing  

her remedies. The appellant opposed the application.    

2 By a judgment dated 19 July 2016 the Trial Court allowed the application  

under Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground that the fresh election petition was presented  

after the expiry of 30 days prescribed for the institution of an election petition. The  

first respondent preferred an appeal which was allowed by the District Judge,

3    

Narnaul on 18 January 2017.  The appellant challenged the order of the District  

Judge before the High Court. The Civil Revision has been dismissed by the  

impugned order of the High Court dated 11 August 2017.  The High Court has  

observed thus:  

“The application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was  

filed subsequently when petitioner herein raised an  

objections(sic). Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not  

provide for filing of a separate application.  In any case, now  

application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act has already  

been filed, therefore, the irregularity, if any, stand cured.”  

3 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the   

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 is a complete code for the presentation and  

adjudication of election petitions. Counsel submitted that an election petition has  

to be instituted under Section 176 within 30 days from the date of the declaration  

of the results of the elections.  An election petition which does not comply with  

Section 176 must be rejected outright.  Learned counsel submitted that this view  

has consistently been followed in several decisions of the Punjab and Haryana  

High Court, to which a reference was made.  These are:Joginder Singh v Baldev  

Singh1, Rashpal Singh @ Rachpal Singh  v Jasvir Singh2, Chet Ram v State  

                                                           1 2010(1) PLR 769 paras 6 & 7  2 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 408

4    

of Punjab3, Darshan Singh v Karamjit Singh4, Parkasho v Bhola Devi5 and  

Deepa Mangla v Nanak Chand6.  

4 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first  

respondent submitted that a triable case arises against the appellant for submitting  

a false certificate of Matriculation and hence, the order of the High Court may not  

be interfered with.  

5 Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 provides as follows:  

176. Determination of validity of election enquiry by judge and  

procedure:   

(1) If the validity of any election of a member of a Gram  

Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad or 2 [ * * * ]  

Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chairman or Vice-Chairman,  

President or Vice-President of Panchayat Samiti or Zila  

Parishad respectively is brought in question by any person  

contesting the election or by any person qualified to vote at the  

election to which such question relates, such person may at  

any time within thirty days after the date of the declaration of  

results of the election , present an election petition to the civil  

court having ordinary jurisdiction in the area within which the  

election has been or should have been held, for the  

determination of such question.   

(2) A petitioner shall not join as respondent to his election  

petition except the following persons :—   

(a) where the petitioner in addition to challenging the validity of  

the election of all or any of the returned candidates claims a  

further relief that he himself or any other candidate has been  

duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the  

                                                           3 2010(4) PLR 718  4 2012(2) PLR 831  5 2012(3) PLR 541  6 CR No 523/2013 decided on 06.02.2015

5    

petitioner and where no such further relief is claimed, all the  

returned candidates ;   

(b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any  

corrupt practices are made in the election petition.   

(3) All election petitions received under sub-section (1) in which  

the validity of the election of members to represent the same  

electoral division is in question, shall be heard by the same civil  

court.   

(4) (a) If on the holding such inquiry the civil court finds that a  

candidate has, for the purpose of election committed a corrupt  

practice within the meaning of sub-section (5) he shall set  

aside the election and declare the candidate disqualified for the  

purpose of election and fresh election may be held.   

1[(aa) If on holding such enquiry the Civil Court finds that-   

(i) on the date of his election a returned candidate was not  

qualified to be elected;   

(ii) any nomination has been improperly rejected; or   

(iii) the result of the election, in so far it concerns a returned  

candidate, has been materially affected by improper  

acceptance of any nomination or by any corrupt  

practice committed in the interest of the returned  

candidate by an agent other than his election agent or  

by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any  

vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any  

non-compliance with or violation of the provisions of  

the Constitution of India or of this Act, or any rules or  

orders made under this Act, election of such returned  

candidate shall be set aside and fresh election may be  

held.;]   

(b) If, in any case to which 2[clause (a) or clause (aa)] does not  

apply, the validity of an election is in dispute between two or  

more candidates, the court shall after a scrutiny and  

computation of the votes recorded in favour of each candidate,  

declare the candidate who is found to have the largest number  

of valid votes in his favour, to have been duty elected :  

Provided that after such computation, if any, equality of votes  

is found to exist between any candidate and the addition of one  

vote will entitle any of the candidate to be declared elected,  

one additional vote shall be added to the total number of valid  

votes found to have been received in the favour of such  

candidate or candidates, as the case may be, elected by lot  

drawn in the presence of the judge in such manner as he may  

determine.     

6    

(5) A person shall be deemed to have committed a corrupt  

practice-   

(a) who with a view to induce a voter to give or to refrain from  

giving a vote in favour of any candidate, offers or gives any  

money or valuable consideration, or holds out any promise of  

individual profit, or holds out any threat of injury to any person  

; or   

(b) who, with a view to induce any person to stand or not to  

stand or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate  

at an election, offers or gives any money or valuable  

consideration or holds out any promise or individual profit or  

holds out any threat of injury to any person ; or   

(c) who hires or procures whether on payment or otherwise,  

any vehicle or vessel for the conveyance of any voter (other  

than the person himself, the members of his family or his agent)  

to and from any polling station.   

Explanation 1.– A corrupt practice shall be deemed to have  

been committed by a candidate, if it has been committed with  

his knowledge and consent by a person who is acting under  

the general or special authority of such candidate with  

reference to the election.   

Explanation 2.– The expression "vehicle" means any vehicle  

used or capable of being used for the purpose of road transport  

whether propelled by mechanical power or otherwise, and  

whether used for drawing other vehicles or otherwise.”  

Sub-section (1) of Section 176 clearly specifies a period of 30 days from the date  

of the declaration of the results of the election within which an election petition has  

to be filed.  There is no provision for condoning delay or for extending the period  

of limitation.    

6 In Hukum Dev Narain Yadav v Lalit Narain Mishra7, while considering  

whether the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 would be applicable to an election  

                                                           7 (1974) 2 SCC 133

7    

petition under the Representation of People Act 1951, P.Jaganmohan Reddy, J.,  

speaking for a three Judge bench of this Court held thus:  

“..The applicability of these provisions has, therefore, to be  

Judged not from the terms of the Limitation Act but by the  

provisions of the Act relating to the filing of election petitions  

and their trial to ascertain whether it is a complete code in itself  

which does not admit of the application of any of the provisions  

of the Limitation Act mentioned in Section 29(2) of that Act.”  

This Court held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not govern  

filing of election petitions or their trial.  

7 In Charan Lal Sahu v Nandkishore Bhatt8, a two Judge bench held that  

there is no common law right to challenge an election since it is purely a matter of  

regulation by the terms of the statute. The right being statutory, the terms of the  

statute must be complied with.   

8 A three Judge bench of this Court in Lachhman Das Arora v Ganeshi Lal9,  

construed the provisions of Section 81 (1) of the Representation of the People Act  

1951, which prescribes a period of 45 days to file an election petition. Chief Justice  

Dr AS Anand, speaking for the Court, held thus:  

“7. On its plain reading, Section 81(1) lays down that an  

election petition calling in question any election may be  

                                                           8 (1973) 2 SCC 530  9 (1999) 8 SCC 532

8    

presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-

section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 of the Act to the  

High Court by any candidate at such election or by an elector  

within forty-five days from, but not earlier than, the date of  

election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one  

returned candidate at the election and the dates of their  

election are different, the later of those two dates. The Act is a  

special code providing a period of limitation for filing of an  

election petition. No period for filing of an election petition is  

prescribed under the Indian Limitation Act. The Act insofar as  

it relates to presentation and trial of election disputes is a  

complete code and a special law. The scheme of the special  

law shows that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Indian  

Limitation Act do not apply. If an election petition is not filed  

within the prescribed period of forty-five days, Section 86(1) of  

the Act, which provides that the High Court shall dismiss an  

election petition which does not comply with the provisions of  

Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117, is straightaway  

attracted.”  

9 The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 is a complete code for the  

presentation of election petitions.  The statute has mandated that an election  

petition must be filed within a period of 30 days of the date of the declaration of  

results.  This period cannot be extended.  The provision of Section 14 of the  

Limitation Act 1963 would clearly stand excluded.  The legislature having made a  

specific provision, any election petition which fails to comply with the statute is  

liable to be dismissed. The High Court has failed to notice both the binding  

judgments of this Court and its own precedents on the subject, to which we have  

referred.  The first respondent filed an election petition in the first instance to which  

there was an objection to maintainability under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.  

Confronted with the objection under Order 7 Rule 11, the first respondent obviated  

a decision thereon by withdrawing the election petition. The grant of liberty to file

9    

a fresh election petition cannot obviate the bar of limitation. The fresh election  

petition filed by the first respondent was beyond the statutory period of 30 days  

and was hence liable to be rejected.   

10 We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the  

High Court dated 11 August 2017. We hold that the election petition filed by the  

first respondent shall stand dismissed There shall be no order as to costs.    

                      ….....................................CJI    [DIPAK MISRA]                                                      …......................................J    [Dr D Y  CHANDRACHUD]  

 New Delhi  August  21, 2018