MOHINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India brings forth rather a queer situation in the context of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, The Petitioner was declared duly elected as a Municipal Commissioner on May 15, 1983. This election of his, however, was challenged by Respondent No. 4 by filing an election petition in terms of Rule 53 of the above noted rules. The relevant part of this rule, i.e., Sub -rule (1), reads as follows:

(2.) HAVING given by thoughtful consideration to the entire matter in the light of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the stand of the Respondents is wholly untenable. It is not disputed before me that where period of limitation is prescribed by the statute or the rules for, the filing of a petition or doing an act, with the expiry of that period of limitation, a right accrues to the party against whom the petition or the action is proposed to be taken in terms of any rule or law and that right cannot be wiped out or nullified by any authority or tribunal without hearing the affected party or the affected person. In other words, in case the authority competent to condone the delay in the filing of the petition finds enough of justification or reason to condone the delay or remove the bar of limitation and thereby wants to take away the benefit from the person to whom a right has accrued on account of the lapse of period of limitation, it must at least hear that person. I hardly need multiply the citations or precedents in support of this proposition except to refer to the following meaningful observations made by their Lordships in an election matter in Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. : A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851.