[ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad ]

Allahabad HC Dismisses Corporator's Writ: Election Petition Filed on Court Re-Opening Day After Summer Vacation Was Within Time

Justice Vikas Budhwar held that Section 10 of the U.P. General Clauses Act saved an election petition filed on the first day courts reopened after summer vacation, as no notification barred its acceptance during vacation.

Manaswi Singh — 16 July 2026 — 8 min read

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed a writ petition filed by Ajeet Nigam, the returned candidate in the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam Ward No. 96 (Nehru Nagar-III) Corporator election of May 2023. Justice Vikas Budhwar, sitting singly at Court No. 5, upheld an order of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Ghaziabad, which had decided Issue No. 5 in Election Petition No. 20 of 2023 — the limitation question — against the returned candidate and in favour of the election petitioner, Anil Swami. The High Court found that where no rule, notification, or circular authorises acceptance of election petitions during summer vacations, Section 10 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 applies with full force and saves a petition presented on the first day the court reopens after vacation.

The Election and the Challenge Before the Election Tribunal

The State Election Commission notified elections for Corporators across Uttar Pradesh's Nagar Nigams vide notification dated 9 April 2023. The election for Ward No. 96, Nehru Nagar-III, Ghaziabad, was scheduled on 11 May 2023. Ajeet Nigam, contesting on the camera symbol, was declared elected as Corporator on 13 May 2023.

Anil Swami, son of Sri Krishna Bhargawa, an unsuccessful candidate in the same ward, instituted Election Petition No. 20 of 2023 under Section 62 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, before the Court of District Judge, Ghaziabad, questioning the election of the returned candidate. The election petition was presented on 1 July 2023.

Section 62(4) of the 1959 Act requires that such a petition be presented to the District Judge exercising jurisdiction in the city within 30 days of the declaration of the result. The result having been declared on 13 May 2023, the 30-day period expired on 12 June 2023. The election petition was thus presented 18 days beyond that date. Written statements were filed by the returned candidate on 8 January 2024. The District Judge, Ghaziabad, framed 11 issues on 28 March 2024, one of which — Issue No. 5 — directly addressed whether the election petition was time-barred.

By order dated 31 May 2024, the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Ghaziabad, decided Issue No. 5 in favour of the election petitioner, Anil Swami, holding that the petition was within time.

The Writ Petition and the Supreme Court's Direction

Ajeet Nigam challenged that order before the Allahabad High Court in Writ-C No. 26552 of 2024. The High Court entertained the petition on 4 September 2024, stayed the effect of the impugned order dated 31 May 2024, and stayed further proceedings in Election Petition No. 20 of 2023 until further orders.

Anil Swami then filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(S). 11311 of 2026 before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the interim stay order of 4 September 2024. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim order but, by order dated 23 March 2026, requested the High Court to dispose of Writ-C No. 26552 of 2024 within four months, noting that the election had been conducted on 13 May 2023 and the matter had already taken considerable time. The SLP was disposed of accordingly.

The High Court reserved judgment on 18 May 2026 and delivered it on 26 May 2026.

The Core Legal Dispute: Was Summer Vacation a Closed Holiday for the District Court?

The factual position on the timeline was not contested. The election result was declared on 13 May 2023. The 30-day limitation under Section 62(4) expired on 12 June 2023. June 2023 was admittedly a period of summer vacation in the district courts, running from 1 June 2023 to 30 June 2023. During this period, criminal work continued but civil work was suspended, with only urgent civil matters being entertained. The election petition was filed on 1 July 2023 — the first day the courts reopened after the vacation.

The returned candidate's argument was straightforward: the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to election petitions under the 1959 Act, no provision for condonation of delay exists, and the election tribunal had no authority to treat the petition as within time. Even if courts dealing with civil work were closed, the office of the District Court remained open. The election petitioner could have presented the petition before the Munsarim or an officer authorised by the District Judge during vacation.

The election petitioner's counter rested on Section 10 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. That provision states that where an act or proceeding is directed to be done in a court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, and the court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act shall be considered done in due time if it is done on the next day on which the court or office is open. The election petitioner argued that since the District Court was not functioning on civil matters and an election petition is a civil proceeding, it could not have been presented during the vacation, and filing it on 1 July 2023 — the re-opening day — was perfectly within time.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Budhwar began by setting out the statutory framework: Section 62 of the 1959 Act, Section 10 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, Rule 13 and Rule 32 of the General Rules (Civil), 1957.

Rule 13 of the 1957 Rules provides that no suit, case, or appeal shall be heard on a declared holiday for subordinate courts without the consent of parties, while preserving power to act on urgently required matters. Rule 32 governs the time for presenting applications, directing that applications and petitions which can be presented to the Munsarim shall be received on any day other than an authorised holiday, with a proviso allowing late-in-the-day receipt in exceptional circumstances. The Court observed that these two rules operate on different fields — one governs hearing matters on holidays, the other governs the time for presenting them.

A critical finding followed on the absence of any specific notification. The Court asked the parties directly whether any rule, notification, or circular had been issued authorising acceptance of election petitions at the District Court level during summer vacations. Both sides confirmed there was none. The Court held that in the absence of such a provision, the courts could not by judicial fiat extend the statutory limitation period for filing election petitions.

The Court then addressed the line of Supreme Court authority on Section 10 of the General Clauses Act in election matters. It traced the position through H.H. Raja Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail Singh, AIR 1957 SC 271, where the Supreme Court held that Section 10 applies whenever a prescribed period expires on a day the court or office is closed, enabling the act to be done on the next working day. That principle was followed in Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, (1974) 2 SCC 133.

The case most directly on point was Hari Shanker Tripathi v. Shiv Harsh and Others, (1976) 1 SCC 897. There, the Supreme Court — on a matter arising from an Allahabad High Court judgment — considered whether an election petition could be filed during summer vacations when the Allahabad High Court had declared the vacation a closed holiday by a formal notification. The Supreme Court held that where the Allahabad High Court's notification designated the summer vacation as a closed holiday, and the limitation period expired during that closed holiday, Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applied in terms. The election petition filed on the re-opening day was within time. The Court further held that the mere opening of the office for ministerial or administrative purposes did not make the court open: the distinction between the opening of the court and the opening of the office was fundamental.

The Supreme Court had also considered the issue in Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and Another, (1996) 1 SCC 169, and in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad and Others, (1999) 8 SCC 266, consistently holding that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applies to election petitions and that if the court was, for all practical purposes, closed on the last day of the prescribed period, the petition filed on the next working day is within time.

From this body of authority, Justice Budhwar drew three propositions:

The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not apply to election petitions under the 1959 Act.
The provisions of Section 10 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 do apply.
Whether the limitation period for filing election petitions during vacations or holidays is saved depends on the notifications issued by the appropriate authorities.

The third proposition proved decisive. The High Court in Hari Shanker Tripathi and the Bombay High Court in Ashok Shankarrao Chavan v. Anil Trayambakrao Patil, (1988) 90 BOMLR 39 (relied on by the petitioner), and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Navjot Singh v. Smt. Harsimrat Kaur Badal, 2015 AIR CC 2555, had all applied Section 10 in contexts where there was a formal notification from the High Court declaring the vacation a closed holiday, or specifically authorising or restricting the filing of election petitions during vacations. In the present case, the parties confirmed no such notification existed for the district courts of Ghaziabad. The petitioner's own reliance on the Bombay High Court judgment thus cut against him: the High Court's notification in that case was the very thing missing here.

The calendar of the District Courts placed on record as Annexure CA-2, showing that only criminal work was conducted and civil work was suspended during vacation, did not carry the matter further for the returned candidate. That calendar did not say election petitions could not be accepted during vacation; it merely recorded the general position on civil and criminal work. In the absence of a rule, notification, or circular on the specific subject of election petitions, the Court held Section 10 of the U.P. General Clauses Act applied with full force.

On the judgments relied on by the returned candidate: Reji Thomas and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, 2018 LawSuit(SC) 555, went only to the proposition that no court can extend statutory limitation in election matters — a point not in dispute, but not the issue here. P. Narappa v. A. Shanker Alva, 1927 LawSuit(Kar) 91, was inapplicable because no notification on vacation filing had been brought on record. Shahnawaz Ali v. Election Tribunal District Judge Muzaffarnagar and 10 Others, 2024 LawSuit(All) 2010, had considered Rules 13 and 32 but had not addressed the specific issue of attempts to file election petitions during summer vacations. None of these judgments, therefore, assisted the writ petitioner.

Outcome

Justice Vikas Budhwar found no manifest illegality in the order of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Ghaziabad, dated 31 May 2024, deciding Issue No. 5 in favour of the election petitioner. The writ petition was held to be misconceived and was dismissed. The interim stay order, which had halted further proceedings in Election Petition No. 20 of 2023 since 4 September 2024, was vacated.