BIMAL KUMAR RAJ Vs. JAHARLAL PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned orders No. 35 dated 17.01.2018 and No. 46 dated 24.01.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Special Court, Paschim Medinipur in Judicial Misc. Case No. 40 of 2015, rejecting the application for condonation of delay, and another application for addition of party are the subject of challenge in this Revisional Application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) In order to address the issue, pertaining to the applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act over the facts and circumstances of the case, where election petition challenging the validity of the result of Municipal Election was made, some salient facts may be mentioned as follows for properly understanding the matter in controversy between the parties.

(3.) One Surajit Sil being petitioner filed election petition, which was registered as Judicial Misc. Case No. 40 of 2015 of Special Court, Paschim Medinipur on 11.05.2015, under Section 75 of the West Bengal Municipal Elections Act, 1994, challenging the municipal election result in respect of Ward No. 35 of Kharagpur Municipality, wherein one Jaharlal Paul (O.P. No. 1) won the election being returned candidate, and accordingly declared to be elected. In such election petition, the Opposite Party No. 1 was alleged to have involved in corrupt practices in wining the aforesaid municipal election, and further Opposite Party No. 1 was alleged to have committed electoral offences, as contemplated under Section 81 of the West Bengal Municipal Elections Act, 1994. The petitioner of Judicial Misc. Case No. 40 of 2015, therafter, filed an application for withdrawing the case on 22.06.2017. The application for withdrawal of the election petition, filed by Surajit Sil, was ultimately dismissed on the ground that election petition could not be allowed to be withdrawn without leave being granted by the Hon'ble High Court, and further in the absence of gazette publication, as required under Section 109 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Petitioner of this Revisional Application, one Dr. Bimal Kumar Raj having also felt aggrieved with the election result, published on 28.04.2015, and further upon noticing the prayer of Surajit Sil for withdrawal of the election petition, filed an application contending, inter alia, that in the absence of notice being published in the official gazette intimating the next date of hearing of the application for withdrawal together with want of leave being granted by the Hon'ble High Court, the prayer for withdrawal of the election petition was against the sanction of law, and sought for an order providing an opportunity to willing persons, like Dr. Bimal Kumar Raj, to participate in the proceeding, as petitioner, instead of original petitioner, Surajit Sil. Such petition of Dr. Bimal Kumar Raj, dated 01.07.2017, was summarily dismissed on the ground that Bimal Kumar Raj had no locus standi to move such application, as he was not a party to the proceeding. Admittedly after having lost the petition dated 01.07.2017, another prayer, dated 15.09.2017, for addition of party was again made by petitioner, Dr. Bimal Kumar Raj, which was supported by another application praying for condonation of delay, filed on 14.11.2017. Similar petition seeking self-same prayer for addition of party coupled with another prayer for condonation of delay was similarly filed by one Choton Sen, who also felt aggrieved with the result of municipal election, and accordingly, sought to be added, as petitioner, in the original election petition, in place of original petitioner namely Surajit Sil.