2025:JHHC:31358 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Election Petition No. 08 of 2025 Harikrishna Singh, aged 47 years, S/o Late Ramsundar Singh, resident of Village-Pasanngan Palheya, P.O.-Palheya, P.S.- Maika, District-Latehar (Jharkhand) ..…Petitioner Versus 1. The Returning Officer, 73, Manika Assembly Constituency, Jharkhand State Legislative Election, 2024-cum-S.D.O., Mahuadanr, P.O and P.S.- Mahuadanr, District- Latehar (Jharkhand) 2. Sri Ramchandra Singh, S/o Sri Ganpat Singh, resident of Village- Mangra, P.O. and P.S.-Barwadih, District-Latehar (Jharkhand) .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kr. Verma, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate Mr. Yash Raj Gupta, Advocate --------- 09/ 24th September, 2025 I.A. No. 4776 of 2025 1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 98 days in filing the present Election Petition. 2. Submission has been made on behalf of petitioner that petitioner was bedridden as he was suffering from jaundice and was not physically able to move here and there and when he recovered from jaundice, immediately thereafter, he filed present election petition, as such, delay of 98 days has been caused in filing the present Election Petition. On aforesaid premise, the prayer has been made to condone the delay of 98 days in filing the instant Election Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 pointed out Sections 81, 82 and 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and raised the preliminary objection that this interlocutory application and the present Election Petition is liable to be dismissed 2025:JHHC:31358 2 as it is barred by the limitation as enumerated under Sections 81(1) and 86(1) of the Act and there is also no provision in the Limitation Act to condone the delay as far as election petition is concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has also argued in consonance with the preliminary objection filed on behalf of respondent no.2. Further, to substantiate his submission, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora versus Ganeshi Lal & Ors. reported in (1999) 8 SCC 532 and submitted that law is settled that the delay in filing the election petition cannot be condoned even for a single day. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on the record. 6. Before coming to the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent no. 2 (Sri Ramchandra Singh, Elected Candidate) and the respondent no.1 (the Returning Officer), it is apposite to discuss herein the short conspectus of the relevant factual aspect of the present case. 7. The present Election Petition has been filed by petitioner, who could not win the assembly election held in the year 2024, primarily challenged the Election on the premise that on 28.10.2024, the representative of the petitioner submitted a representation alongwith enclosures before the respondent no.1 (the Returning Officer) mentioning therein that the respondent no.2 (Elected Candidate) has filed an affidavit on 21.10.2024 uploaded on the website, but the material information about the assets such as lands in his name registered in Register-II situated under Mouza-Karkat, Khata No.4, Area- 1.38 Acres as well as the Stone Crushing Business of his wife namely, Smt. Indu Devi has not been disclosed/mentioned in his affidavit, which is very much evident from the affidavit of respondent no.2 uploaded on the website. 8. Petitioner claims that on the basis of non-disclosure of the 2025:JHHC:31358 3 aforesaid material fact, the candidature of the respondent no.2 ought to be rejected by the respondent no.1 (the Returning Officer), but same could not be done, rather he has been declared as successful candidate in Legislative Assembly, General Election, 2024 from 73, Manika Assembly Constituency. 9. Being dissatisfied, the present Election Petition has been preferred wherein prayer has been made to set aside the election of the respondent no.2 as a Member of Legislative Assembly in General Election, 2024 from 73, Manika Assembly Constituency, where result was declared on 23.11.2024 and prayer has also been made for conducting fresh Election. 10. After issuance of notice, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 put their appearances in the present matter and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has filed preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present Election Petition, primarily on the ground that Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which mandates for presentation of the Election Petition calling in question of any election by the candidate be presented within 45 days from the date of the election, which had not been done in the instant matter, as the election petition has been filed on 15.04.2025, although the respondent no.2 was declared elected on 23.11.2024. 11. Apart from that, objection qua lack of proper attestation and non-compliance of requirement under Rule 61 of Jharkhand High Court Rules have also been taken. 12. It is apposite to discuss herein Sections 81(1) and 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which are reproduced hereunder: 81. Presentation of petitions.—(1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in [sub-section (1)] of Section 100 and Section 101 to the [High Court] by any candidate at such election or any elector [within forty-five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if 2025:JHHC:31358 4 there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates]. Explanation.—In this sub-section, “elector” means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not. 86. Trial of election petitions.—(1) The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117. Explanation.—An order of the High Court dismissing an election petition under this sub-section shall be deemed to be an order made under clause (a) of Section 98. 13. The bare reading of the Section 86(1) of the Act clearly indicates that the election petition shall be dismissed by the High Court, if it does not comply with the provisions of section 81 of the Act. In other words, Section 86(1) obligates the High Court to dismiss the Election Petition on account of non-compliance of Section 81 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 81 of the Act provides for filing of Election Petition within specified time i.e. within 45 days from the date of the election result and non compliance of the same is liable to be non entertained by the court of Law. 14. Record reveals that present election petition has been filed on 15.04.2025 and as per petitioner, result has been declared on 23.11.2024. It transpires that petitioner took more than 45 days in filing the present Election Petition which is not in consonance with the statutory mandate of Section 81 of Act that the election petition shall be filed within 45 days from the date of declaration of the election result and non-compliance of Section 81(1) of the said Act by the petitioner attracts the provision enumerated under Section 86(1) of the Act which statutorily empowers the court to dismiss the Election Petition in case of non-compliance. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachhman Das Arora versus Ganeshi Lal & Ors. reported in (1999) 8 SCC 532, wherein the Apex Court has dismissed the petition on the point of limitation stating therein that the court cannot extend and condone the period of the limitation in the matter of filing the election 2025:JHHC:31358 5 petition. Relevant paragraphs read as under - 6. Section 81(1) of the Act deals with the presentation of election petitions and provides: “81. Presentation of petitions.—(1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any 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 dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates.” 7. On its plain reading, Section 81(1) lays down that an election petition calling in question any election may be 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. 13. We are not impressed by the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the serious charges which had been levelled against the returned candidate in the election petition, the same ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of limitation, as the purity of the election process is required to be maintained. There is no quarrel with the proposition that it is the duty of the courts to maintain the purity of the election process but at the same time there is no gainsaying that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its vigour when the statute so prescribes. The courts cannot extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds more particularly in the matter of filing of election petitions under the Act. Since it is a common ground that the election petition in the instant case had been filed one week after the expiry of the period of forty-five days, it was clearly barred by time. The High Court was, under the circumstances, fully justified in dismissing the election petition on that ground. We do not find any merit in this appeal which accordingly fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs. 16. Considering the above legal proposition and discussion made above, this Court is of considered view that issue raised on 2025:JHHC:31358 6 behalf of respondents is not res integra as the Election petition filed in the present matter is much beyond the period of 45 days and this Court cannot extend and condone the delay in filing the present Election Petition, beyond the statutory mandate merely on the ground of ailment of the petitioner in filing the present Election Petition. 17. In view of aforesaid discussion, I.A. No. 4776 of 2025 stands dismissed. 18. In consequence thereof, the instant Election Petition, being Election Petition No. 08 of 2025 is also dismissed. (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Dated: 24th September, 2025 R.K./ N.AFR