1. The above application has been filed by the returned candidate i.e. The respondent no. 5 to the election petition seeking the following reliefs:

(a) that the election petition be dismissed under the provisions of sub-section 1 of section 86 and also under section 83 of the representation of peoples act, 1951;

(b) for costs;

(c) for such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

2. The dismissal of the election petition has been sought on the ground that filing of the election petition is in breach of section 81 of the representation of people act, 1951 ( for brevities sake, herein after referred to as the said act ) which provides the limitation within which an election petition is to be filed. In paragraph 5 of the application, the dates have been set out as to when the respondent no.5 was declared elected, the date when the election petition was filed. On the said basis, it is averred that there is delay of more than one year in filing the election petition. It has further been averred that the said act, does not provide for condoning any delay in filing an election petition, and therefore, since there is delay caused in filing the election petition, the same ought to be dismissed.

3. In the above application, dismissal is also sought on the ground of non compliance of section 83 of the said act. Factual basis on which the dismissal is sought on the said ground has been set out in the above application. Suffice it to say that it has been averred in the application that a concise statement of the material facts on which the election petitioner relies has not been stated as also the full statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed the corrupt practice and the date and the place of commission of such practice has not been mentioned. It is therefore averred that the election petition is bereft of material particulars, and therefore, falls foul of section 83 of the said act and is liable to be dismissed also on the said ground.

4. At this stage, it would be necessary to refer to the election petition. The said election petition has been filed challenging the election of the respondent no.5 as a member of parliament from the sangli constituency in the election held in the year 2009. The election of the respondent no.5 is sought to be challenged inter alia on the grounds set out in the election petition. Since there is delay in filing the said election petition, the election petitioner i.e. The respondent no.1 in the above application, has filed an application for condonation of delay. The condonation of delay is sought on the ground that the election petitioner was prosecuting a p.i.l. In this court which he had filed challenging the election of the respondent no.5 from the said sangli parliamentary constituency. Hence, in so far as the election petitioner is concerned, by filing the said application for condonation of delay, it is accepted by him that the election petition, as filed, is beyond the period of limitation provided under section 81 of the said act.

5. In view of the dismissal sought by the applicant/respondent no.5 of the election petition inter alia on the ground that the petition is beyond the period of limitation and is therefore liable to be dismissed under section 86 of the said act, in my view, it is not necessary to go into the other grounds on which the dismissal of the election petition is sought by way of the above application. In the context of the ground of limitation, it would be relevant to note a few dates which are as under:

dates events

16/05/2009 results of the sangli assembly constituency declared

10/06/2009 p.i.l. Filed by the petitioner.

01/02/2010 p.i.l. Disposed of.

30/06/2009 period of limitation of 45 days comes to an end.

02/06/2010 election petition filed.

21/09/2010 application for condonation of delay filed.

hence, going by the aforesaid chronology of dates, it can be seen that there is delay of 336 days in f