HANUMANTTAPPA NAYAK Vs. LALITAMMA S/O M.K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.8.2015 passed on I.A.No.1/2015 in Election Petition on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Manvi whereby the application for condonation of delay as well as the main petition are dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner filed the Election Petition under section 15(1), 19(a) (b), 20(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Manvi to declare that the election of the respondent No.7 as null, void and illegal and further sought declaration that the petitioner is the elected candidate as a member of the Bhogavati Gram Panchayat from Mustoor village. The petition was accompanied with an application I.A.No.1/2015 under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the election petition. The Court below without registering the election petition, heard the arguments on I.A.No.1/2015 and held that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not attracted in the case of election petition and rejected I.A.No.1/2015 and consequently the election petition also came to be dismissed. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel Sri Veerangouda, appearing for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shaik Saidulu alias Saida V/s Chukka Yesu Ratnam and others reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 749, contended that section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the election matters. The delay was bonafide. It was for the sufficient cause shown namely, that the application for issue of certified copies of documents before the Returning officer was filed on 25.6.2015, the copies were issued on 7.8.2015 and election petition was filed on 12.8.2015. The learned Judge even without issuing notice to the respondents and there being no objections from other side, dismissed the application I.A.No.1/2015 and consequently the election petition, which is contrary to the judgment referred supra. The learned counsel submits that the Court below without considering the vital aspects of the election petition, dismissed the same on the ground of delay which warrants interference by this Court.