Section 5 Limitation Act Not Applicable To Election Petitions Filed Under U.P. Municipalities Act: Allahabad High Court

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging an order by which the election court had condoned a delay in filing an election petition under the Municipalities Act and had subsequently allowed the election petition.

A Bench Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, who examined whether the provisions of the Limitation Act could be applied to municipal election disputes, held that “the principle of law that the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not apply to the election petitions filed under the Representation of the People Act, will also apply to the election petitions filed under the Municipalities Act, 1916”.

Senior Advocate J.N. Mathur appeared for the petitioner, while respondents were represented by Dr L.P. Mishra, Advocate, along with other counsel.

Background

The petitioner was elected as Chairperson of a Nagar Panchayat in elections held in May 2023. An election petition challenging the petitioner’s election was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.

An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed seeking condonation of delay, which was allowed by the Additional District Judge. Thereafter, the election petition itself was allowed, leading to the declaration of vacancy of the elected office and appointment of an Administrator.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court contending that the delay in filing an election petition under the Municipalities Act could not be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Court’s Observation

The High Court undertook an extensive examination of the statutory scheme governing municipal election petitions and the applicability of the Limitation Act.

The Court noted that Section 20 of the U.P. Municipalities Act prescribes a specific limitation period of thirty days for filing an election petition. It further noted that the proviso to Section 23 of the Act expressly makes only Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act applicable for the computation of limitation, and no other provision of the Limitation Act has been incorporated.

The Court analysed a long line of Supreme Court precedents dealing with election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including K.V. Rao v. B.N. Reddi, Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal, and Suman Devi v. Manisha Devi. It noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that election laws constitute a complete and self-contained code, and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to election petitions filed under the Representation of the People Act.

The Court observed that although these judgments arose under the Representation of the People Act, the relevant provisions of that Act are materially similar to those contained in the U.P. Municipalities Act. On that basis, the Court held that the same principle must apply to municipal election petitions as well.

The Court further held that even though an election petition under the Municipalities Act is not a suit, it is an original proceeding which is decided in the manner of a suit. Since Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to suits, it would not apply to election petitions either.

The High Court concluded that the election court had committed an error in condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and that the subsequent judgment allowing the election petition was also unsustainable in law.

Conclusion

Holding Section 5 of the Limitation Act not applicable to election petitions filed under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, the Allahabad High Court set aside the order condoning delay as well as the judgment allowing the election petition.

Consequently, the election petition was dismissed as barred by limitation. The Court further held that all consequential actions, including the appointment of an Administrator and declaration of vacancy of the elected office, stood nullified, and the petitioner was entitled to continue as Chairperson of the Nagar Panchayat.

Cause Title Omkar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:80035)

Appearances

Petitioner: J.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate; Mudit Agarwal, Advocate

Respondents: C.S.C.; Abhishek Mishra, Advocate; Anurag Kumar Singh, Advocate; Sajjad Husain, Advocate; Syed Aftab Ahmad, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment