Election Petition Filed After Vacation Not Time-Barred In Absence Of Notification Permitting Filing During Vacation: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that an election petition challenging the election of a Corporator under the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, filed on the reopening of the District Court after the summer vacation, is within limitation by virtue of Section 10 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, where the 30-day limitation period expired during the vacation.

It further held that though the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to election petitions and courts cannot extend the statutory period of limitation, Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applies where no notification permits acceptance of election petitions during the vacations.

Section 62(4) of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 requires a petition questioning the election of a Corporator to be presented to the District Judge exercising jurisdiction in the city within 30 days of the declaration of the result of the election.

Section 10 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 provides that where any act or proceeding under a U.P. Act is to be done in a court or office within a prescribed period, and the court or office is closed on the last day of that period, the act shall be considered as done in due time if done on the next day on which the court or office is open.

Justice Vikas Budhwar held,

“…… in the facts and circumstances of the present case an irresistible conclusions stand drawn (a) The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not apply to election petitions (b) The provisions of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act do apply (c) The question of limitation for filing election petitions during vacations or holidays depends upon the notifications so issued by the appropriate authorities.”

Petitioner was declared elected as Corporator of Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, Ward No. 96, Nehru Nagar-III on 13.05.2023, the election having been held on 11.05.2023. Respondent no. 2, an unsuccessful candidate, instituted Election Petition under Section 62 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 before the District Judge, Ghaziabad, questioning the petitioner's election. The 30-day limitation period expired on 12.06.2023, during the summer vacation of the District Court which ran from 1st June to 30th June 2023. The election petition was presented on 01.07.2023, the day the Court reopened.

Among other issues framed in the election petition, Issue No. 5 was whether the petition was time-barred. This was decided in favour of the election petitioner and against the returned candidate by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Ghaziabad.

The returned candidate challenged the order to that extent before the High Court, which stayed the order and further proceedings on 04.09.2024. In a special leave petition filed by the election petitioner against the interim order, the Supreme Court declined to interfere but directed the High Court to dispose of the writ petition within four months.

Counsel for the returned candidate argued that the election petition, filed after a delay of 18 days, could not have been entertained as the Limitation Act, 1963 was inapplicable and there was no provision for condonation of delay. It was contended that though civil work was suspended during the summer vacation, the office of the district court remained open, and the election petitioner could have presented the petition before the Munsarim or the officers authorised by the District Judge. Not having done so, the petition was beyond limitation.

Counsel for the election petitioner submitted that though the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply, Section 10 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 squarely applied. Since civil work stood suspended during the vacation and an election petition, being a civil dispute, could not be entertained, its presentation on 1st July 2023, when the court reopened, was within time.

The Court noted that it was undisputed that during the summer vacation only criminal work was conducted and, on the civil side, only urgent matters were entertained. Examining Rule 13 and Rule 32 of the General Rules (Civil), 1957, which deal with work on holidays and the time for presenting applications, the Court held that the two rules operate on different fields.

On a pointed query by the Court, neither party could point to any specific notification for acceptance of election petitions during the vacations, summer or winter.

“Notably, there is no provision under the 1959 Act which makes the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable. Thus, the courts, by a judicial fiat, cannot extend the period of limitation so stipulated in the statute for presenting the election petition.”

Explaining the effect of Section 10 of the 1904 Act, the Court held,

“…. once the courts are closed and the limitation period comes to an end on the date when the courts are closed, then on the opening day, if the proceedings are undertaken, then it would be within time and not time-barred.”

In Hari Shanker Tripathi Vs. Shiv Harsh and others, the Supreme Court, while dealing with a limitation period which expired during the summer vacation declared a closed holiday, had held that the election petition was rightly filed on the reopening day, drawing a distinction between the opening of the court and the opening of its office.

Rejecting reliance on the district court calendar, which only showed that criminal work was to be conducted and civil work stood suspended except urgent matters, the Court held

“In absence of any rule/notification/circulars on the said subject, it cannot be said that the election petition is liable to be filed and accepted during the summer vacations particularly when Section 10 of the U.P. General Clauses applies with full force.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Ajeet Nigam v. Additional District Judge And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 394

Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 394

Counsel for Petitioner: Sanjai Kumar

Counsel for Respondents; Akshat Sinha, Sanyukta Singh

Click Here To Read/Download Order