Timeliness is crucial in election petitions; even minimal delay is not condonable, leading to automatic dismissal under the Representation of People Act, 1951.

ORDER :

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, J.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Mr. G.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel is present and files Vakalatnama duly executed in his favour and associates by the sole Respondent and submits, though his client should have appeared on caveat, since the matter is on board, on being instructed by the Respondent, he files the Vakalatnama to represent the sole Respondent and he may be permitted to address this Court on the application for condonation of delay filed by the Election Petitioner.

3. In view of such submission made by Mr. Agarwal, learned Counsel, the Vakalatnama filed in the Court is taken on record.

4. Learned Counsel for the Election Petitioner submits, the Election Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner, who is an Elector of 25-Champua Assembly Constituency, challenging the election of Mr. Sanatan Mahakud, who has been elected as M.L.A., 25-Champua Assembly Constituency. Mr. Kanungo, learned Counsel for the Election Petitioner further submits, there is a delay of 9 days in presenting the Election Petition. The Election Petition could not be presented within 45 days as there was a delay on the part of the Public Information Officer (PIO) to supply the information and documents, based on which the Election Petition has been filed. Hence, the delay should be condoned. To substantiate his submission, Mr. Kanungo, learned counsel for the Election Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1974) 2 SCC 133 ( Hukumdev Narain Yadav Vs. Lalit Narain Mishra ).

5. Learned Counsel for the Election Petitioner further submits, the delay in presenting an Election Petition can be condoned by this Court, provided sufficient cause is shown in the Application. As the Election Petition was preferred after obtaining the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 because of the conduct of the PIO to supply the necessary documents/information belatedly, the Election Petition could not be presented on time.

6. Per contra, Mr. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits, so far as delay is concerned, the stamp reporting has been done incorrectly. It should have been calculated as 11 days, instead of 1 day delay, as the cause of action arose on 04.06.2024, where as the Election Petition has been presented on 30.06.2024. There is no such order, which is under challenge in the present Election Petition, requiring certified copy, thereby permitting the Office to deduct 10 days towards alleged period consumed for obtaining the certified copy.

7. Drawing attention of this Court to the legal provisions under Section 81 read with Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, shortly, ‘the Act, 1951’ so also judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 93 ( (Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal Vs. Rajiv Gandhi) ), learned Counsel for the Respondent submits, in terms of Section 81 of the Act, 1951, the Election Petition calling in question any election, has to be presented within 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate and if an Elector intends to challenge such election, it has to be within 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate and if there is a delay in presenting the application, such defect is not curable and the Election Petition has to be dismissed in terms of Section 86 of the Act, 1951.

8. To substantiate his submission, Mr. Agarwal draws attention of this Court to para-31 of the judgment in Rajiv Gandhi (supra), wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:

“31. The above scanning of the election petition would show that the appellant failed to plead complete details of corrupt practice which could co