Important points:
No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

Appellant, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8834 of 2019, challenges the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 28.01.2020, upholding the decision of the Kerala State Election Commission condoning the delay of 8 days in filing a petition in terms of proviso to Rule 4A of the Kerala Local Authorities (Disqualification of Defected Members) Rules, 2000 ('Rules, 2000' for short).

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:

Appellant and second respondent, one Mini Savio, were elected as the members of the Thidanadu Grama Panchayat in the General Election of the Local Bodies held in November, 2015, as the official candidates of the Kerala Congress (M), which is a constituent of United Democratic Front, (UDF). Being a majority political front, it formed the Panchayat Committee and the second respondent was elected as the President. Second respondent has filed a petition before the Kerala State Election Commission as per the provisions of the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999 ('Act, 1999' for short) and the Rules above specified that a No Confidence Motion was moved against the President and Vice President which was tabled for discussion on 15.05.2018 and the Kerala Congres (M) party decided to abstain from attending the meeting. The District President of the Kerala Congress (M) had issued whip to all the elected members of the party, including the appellant, directing them to abstain from attending the meeting on 15.05.2018 and from voting in the 'No Confidence Motion'. However, the appellant disobeyed and participated in the election. Thus, according to the second respondent the appellant has committed defection inviting disqualification as provided under Section 3(1)(a) of Act, 1999.

3. As per the provisions of Rules, 2000, an application is to be filed within 30 days as it stood amended as per G.O. (P) No. 136/2014 dated 23.07.2014. Fact remains, the original petition was filed only on 22.06.2018 along with I.A. No. 87 of 2018 to condone the delay of 8 days in filing the Original Petition. Second respondent in the application for condonation of delay has submitted that since he fell ill due to the extreme body pain and high fever, he could not file the application within the period prescribed under law and he has produced certificate issued from the Primary Health Centre, Thidanad dated 14.06.2018 advising rest for a week. It is also submitted that thereafter, she had to proceed to Bombay for a personal matter and she reached Trivandrum only on 21.05.2018. In the application for condonation of delay, petitioner as well as the Doctor were examined as PWs 1 and 2 and after assimilating the fact situations and the evidence adduced, State Election Commission has condoned the delay holding that the delay of 8 days is sufficiently explained by the second respondent. It was thus, challenging the order of the Election Commission, writ petition was filed.

4. Learned single Judge, after taking into account the rival submissions and materials on record, has concluded that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the order passed by the State Election Commission, justifying interference in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. The contentions put forth by the appellant is that the explanation offered by the second respondent for condonation of delay was false, which is quite evident and clear from the contradictions in the deposition of PW2, the doctor. It is also pointed out that the second respondent sworn in before the Commission that she went to the Public Health Centre on 14.06.2018, took out patient ticket, met the doctor and secured treatment, and thereafter Ext.P2 medical certificate was obtained. However, the doctor has deposed that the doctor was on casual leave on 14.06.2018 and the second respondent went to his house on that day and she was treated at his residence. It is also submitted that the medical certificate was