BASANTI SWAIN Vs. SANTILATA PARIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition at the instance of an unsuccessful party in the matter of allowing an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, involving Election Case no.15 of 2017 under the provisions of the Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Nimapara vide Annexure-4.

(2.) In short, background involving the case is opp. party no.1 filed Election Case no.15 of 2017 seeking relief inter alia for declaring the petitioner therein as elected Sarpanch of Chandradeipur Grama Panchayat and the cost of litigation in favour of the petitioner therein against the opp. Party no.1 and 3 therein. For filing of the election dispute after the expiry of period prescribed in the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964, the opp. Party no.1 herein as the election petitioner also filed an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the Election Dispute. Filing the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, the opp. party no.1 to satisfy the delay in filing the election petition contended that the opp. party no.1 was a lady and belonging to backward class. It is also contended therein that the election involved though concluded on 19.02.2017, result was declared thereafter, on counting of votes being closed. The election petitioner finding the present petitioner unable to read and write Odia, being mandatory for a Ward Member in the Panchayat meeting convened on 31.03.2017, filed an application under Section 26 (2) of Orissa Grama Panchayat Act before the Collector and little thereafter, the opp. party no.1 also made an attempt invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act to collect the information regarding the education of the opposite party no.1 and only after receiving information in this regard, was constrained to file the election dispute only on 18.07.2017. To satisfy the ground of delay, while reiterating the stand taken in the Section 5 of the limitation application, the opp. Party no.1 also submitted that the reason in filing the election dispute with delay being bona fide and not intentional, the delay should be condoned in order to have a fair trial of the election dispute. On her appearance, present petitioner, opp. Party no.1 therein filing written objection to the delay condonation application contended that the opp. Party no.1 herein had several stages of information and cause of actions for filing the election dispute and in the worse, in the event, she could undertake a proceeding under Section 26(2) of the Act before the Collector in the month of March, nothing prevented her from filing the election dispute either on the same day or at least immediately thereafter. It is on the above premises, the opp. Party no.1 herein prayed for rejection of the limitation application. As a consequence, the election petition should have also been rejected as claimed by the opp. party no.1.

(3.) Trial Court i.e. the Election Tribunal on the basis of the pleading available in the application as well as in the objection at the instance of the respective parties and based on the submissions made therein by the impugned order under Annexure-4 while condoning the delay allowed the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.