Jayanti Seth Vs State of Odisha

1. Heard Mr. J. Bhuyan, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. S.P. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate for the StateOpposite Parties 1 to 3 and Mr. B. Seth, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.4.

¶16

2. Present writ petition is directed against the impugned orders dated 25.4.2022 and 2.5.2022 of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Loisingha in Election Petition No.1 of 2022 (Annexure-3).

¶17

W.P.(C) No.23560 of 2022

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 22-Aug-2024 17:05:27

¶21

3. Present Petitioner is the return candidate. Opposite Party No.4 is the Election Petitioner. The presentation of the election petition before the learned Civil Judge beyond the period of fifteen days is objected by the return candidate. According to her, the condonation of delay in presenting the election petition by learned Tribunal is illegal.

¶22

4. Mr. J. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, according to the Election Petitioner, she mistakenly filed a writ petition before this Court initially and then by withdrawing the same presented the election petition with delay. Therefore, the delay in question practically falls within the ambit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and as such, it is not permissible to be condoned. In support of his contention, he relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suman Devi vs. Manisha Devi and others, AIR 2018 SC 3912

¶23

5. Section 31 of the Odisha Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 (in short “OGP Act”) specifies for presentation of the election petition within a period of fifteen days from the date of publication of the result. It further stipulates that, such period of limitation may be condoned by the court if the Petitioner satisfies that he was prevented by sufficient cause to present the petition within such period and the court may in his discretion condone the delay.

¶24

6. A thorough perusal of the provisions under Section 31 of the OGP Act do not justify the contention of the Petitioner that the delay in presenting the election petition is strictly falling within Section 14 of the Limitation Act. When the court has been empowered with

¶25

W.P.(C) No.23560 of 2022 Page 2 of 4

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 22-Aug-2024 17:05:27

¶28

discretion to condone the delay for existence of sufficient cause, the delay in presenting the election petition has to be adjudged within the limits of provisions under Section 31 of the OGP Act.

¶29

7. The case in Suman Devi (supra) is relating to Panchayat Election of Haryana State concerning Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. As per said Act, the election petition has to be presented within thirty days from the date of declaration and there is no such provision in the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act to condone the delay in presenting the election petition. Therefore, the decision in Suman Devi’s case as cited by Mr. Bhuyan is found distinguishable on the facts of the present case, particularly when OGP Act recognizes condonation of delay on the discretion of the court.

¶30

8. Now coming to the merits of the impugned order dated 2.5.2022, it is seen that the learned Civil Judge deals with the limitation aspect in detail and has taken note of filing of W.P.(C) No.6757 of 2022 by the Election Petitioner on wrong advise and the order passed by this Court therein granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. In the opinion of learned Civil Judge, the mistake done on the part of the Election Petitioner was bonafide since she was wrongly advised by her counsel. Further, in the opinion of leaned Civil Judge there existed sufficient cause for failure on the part of the Election Petitioner to present the election petition in time. Moreover, the alleged delay is for ten days only. Therefore, the approach of the learned Civil Judge in condoning the delay is found justified.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.23560 of 2022

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 22-Aug-2024 17:05:27

¶35

9. For the reasons afore-stated, no merit is seen in favour of the Petitioner to interfere with the impugned order condoning the delay by the learned Civil Judge.

¶36

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. All interim orders stand vacated.

¶37

(B.P. Routray) Judge

¶38

B.K. Barik/Secretary

¶39

W.P.(C) No.23560 of 2022

¶40

Page 4 of 4

Jayanti Seth v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanti Seth v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Gopal Jew Bije Nijgaon Vs State of Odisha

Mahendra Naik Vs State of Orissa

Ramesh Chandra Naik Vs State of Odisha

M/S Aryans Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bbsr Vs State of Odisha

Sk.Fayazuddin Vs State of Odisha

Lopamudra Mohanty Vs State of Odisha