KHEM KARAN, J. - (1.) AN important question of law is involved in this writ petition and the same is as to whether or not delay in filing revision under Sub -section (6) of Section 12C of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short the Act of 1947), can be condoned under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1963).
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this writ petition are as under : 'In an election held in June, 2000, to the office of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Mubarakpur, district Shrawasti, Tej Narain (opposite party No. 2) was declared elected. Smt. Krishna Kanti (the petitioner), who was also in the fray, filed an election petition under Section 12C (1) of the Act of 1947. before the prescribed authority (Sub -Divisional Officer), who vide his order .dated 5.3.2001, decided for recounting of the votes and fixed 12.3.2001 for the purpose. TejNarain, challenged the same by filing a Writ Petition No. 659 (M/S) of 2001, wherein this Court vide its interim order dated 12.3.2001. stayed the operation of order dated 5.3.2001 but by the time same could be brought to the notice of the prescribed authority, recounting had already taken place and the election petition allowed, vide order dated 12.3.2001. On the basis of the result of recounting, the present petitioner (Smt. Krishna Kanti) was declared elected. This gave rise to another Writ Petition No. 915 (M/S) of 2001. Both the aforesaid writ petitions, filed by Tej Narain were finally disposed of, by common order dated 24.4.2001 of this Court. The Writ Petition No. 659 (M/S) of 2001, against order dated 5.3.2001 of the prescribed authority was dismissed as infructuous, whereas the Writ Petition No. 915 (M/S) of 2001, against the order dated 12.3.2001 of the prescribed authority was also dismissed, but on the ground that the petitioner had alternative remedy of revision, under subsection (6) of Section 12C of the Act of 1947. The Court further provided in its order dated 24.4.2001, that the period consumed in prosecuting the Writ Petition No. 915 (M/S) of 2001, shall be excluded, for counting the period mentioned in subsection (6) of Section 12C of the Act of 1947.' Special leave petition, filed before the Apex Court, was dismissed on 27.7.2001. The opposite party No. 2, says that information of this dismissal came to him on 9.8.2001 and certified copy of order dated 27.7.2001, was received on 17.8.2001. On 18.8.2001 the revision under Section 12C (6) of the Act of 1947, was filed before the District Judge, Shrawasti, along with application for condonation of delay. After hearing the contesting parties, the learned District Judge condoned the delay, vide order dated 22.9.2001, which is being Impugned in this writ petition. Further proceedings, pursuant to the impugned order dated 22.9.2001, stand stayed by this Court, in view of interim order dated 14.3.2002.
(3.) SRI U. K. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that like, Representation of the Peoples Act. 1951. Act of 1947, is also a self -contained Code and the provisions of the Act of 1963, cannot be made applicable to the proceedings thereunder, except to the extent the Act of 1947 or the rules framed thereunder make the same applicable. He submits that Sub -section (2) of Section 29 of the Act of 1963 is not attracted to the proceedings under Section 12C (1) or (6) of the Act of 1947. To support his arguments. Sri Srivastava has referred to Sakru v. Tanaji : 1985(22)ELT327(SC) , Anwari Baswaraj Patil and Ors. v. Seddaramaiah and Ors., : [1993]1SCR313 and Ansar Ahmad v. Sub -Divisional Officer. Kairana and Ors., 1998 (3) AWC 18O7 : 1998 RD 500. His second contention is that even if it is accepted for a moment that the period, consumed in prosecuting the Writ Petition No. 915 of 2001 was to be excluded, in view of the concession granted by this Court in its order of 24.4.2001 the revision filed on 18.8.2001 was highly time -barred and the delay, caused after 24.4.2001 could not have been condoned under Section 5 of the Act of 1963. His third submission is that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the provisions contained under Sections 4 to 24 of the Act of 1963, were applicable, by virtue of Sub -section (2) of Section 29 of the Act of 1963 to the filing of application under Section 12C (6), there were, no sufficient grounds to condone the delay, because the opposite party No. 2, was not diligent and prompt in prosecuting one remedy or the other. According to him, the order dated 22.9.2001 by which the learned District Judge has condoned the delay, being contrary to law and totally unjustified one deserves to be quashed.;