PREM CHANDRA PRASAD Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner appears to be that an election petition was submitted to the election tribunal much beyond the period of limitation and the concerned election tribunal without giving any opportunity of hearing or even without issuing the notice to the petitioner condoned the delay. The petitioner submits that after learning about the condonation of delay, he made an application to the said election tribunal to consider the question afresh but as his application has been rejected on the ground that the earlier order was passed after due application of mind, there was no reason to recall the order. The petitioner submits that once the limitation to file a suit, proceedings, or application expires then a valuable right accrues in favour of the opposite party and if that right is sought to be infringed then the authority has to issue the notices of the condonation application giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected party and only then pass the orders.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the election commission say that the matter is between the private parties, therefore they are not required to file their counter.