The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the election petition was properly filed within the prescribed period of limitation and disclosed a cause of action, it was dismissed due to non-compliance with the requirements of filing the petition.

P.V. Hardas. J.- The election petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate at the General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of Goa, held on 30th May, 2002, has challenged the election of the respondent No. 1, the returned candidate, who was declared elected from the Siolim Assembly Constituency. The Chief Electoral Officer of the State of Goa by Notification No. 464/GOA-LA 2002, dated 6th May, 2002, and under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, had called upon the Assembly constituencies of the State of Goa to elect members to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa and had further appointed the dates for different stages of the election by publication in the Official Gazette, Series II, No.5, Extraordinary, dated 6th May, 2002. The copy of the Gazette is annexed to the election petition as Exhibit ‘A’. The election petitioner was nominated as a candidate at the General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa from the Siolim-Constituency. The returned candidate was also nominated as a candidate at the said General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa from the Siolim Assembly Constituency. The Returning Officer had published a list of contesting candidates under Rule 31(1)(b) on 16th May, 2002. The list of the names of the candidates for contesting the elections and the symbols allotted to each of them is annexed to the petition as Exhibit 'B'. In Exhibit 'B' the name of the election petitioner appears at Serial No.2 and the name of the returned candidate/ respondent No. 1 appears at Serial No.5.

2. The principal ground taken in the present election petition challenging the election of the returned candidate/respondent No. 1 is that on the date of nomination and the date of election of respondent No. 1 he was disqualified as the respondent No. 1 was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Goa Khadi and Village Industries Board and, as such, was holding an office of profit under the government of Goa.

3. In response to the notice being issued by this Court, the respondent No. 1/returned candidate filed an application at Exhibit 6 under order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act. In the said application various grounds have been raised for dismissal of the election petition. The election petitioner has filed his reply to the application at Exhibit 6 and the reply of the election petitioner is at Exhibit 8.

4. The parties to the proceedings had submitted draft issues. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following issues have been framed :

"1. Whether the respondent No. 1 proves that the election petition is liable to be rejected under Section 81(1) read with Section 86 of the Act by reason of it being barred by limitation?

2. Whether the respondent No. 1 proves that the election petition is liable to be rejected in limine under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 by reason of its non-compliance with Sections 81(3), 83(1)(a), 83(1)(c) and 83(2) of the said Act?

3. Whether the respondent No. 1 proves that the election petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 (a) of the CPC read with Section 87 of the said Act by reason of non-disclosure of any cause of action?"

5. In support of the prayer for dismissal of the election petition, the respondent No. 1/returned candidate has examined one witness. The respondent No. 1/returned candidate examined Miss Gandhali N. Pednekar, an Advocate practising at Panaji, as his witness. The affidavit by way of examination-in-Chief of RW 1 Gandhali Pednekar is at Exhibit 16, RW 1 Gandhali Pednekar in her affidavit states that she is a practising advocate and is a junior of Advocate Vilas P. Thali, the Advocate for respondent No. 1/returned candidate. She has been assisting Advocate Shri Thali in the present election petition. She has further stated that the present election petition was listed