Election petition delay, defective verification, and proved corrupt practice were sustained; appellate interference was refused.

An election petition filed out of time but within the statutory framework could still be entertained where delay was condoned on sufficient cause and the verification defect was amended; the Election Commission's power to condone delay could be exercised without a formal application or personal appearance, and the Tribunal could decide whether to dismiss the petition but not review a valid condonation order. The Court also held that findings of corrupt practice would not be interfered with in appeal under article 136 unless perverse, and evidence supporting inducement to withdraw a candidate and use of a bus to convey voters was sufficient. The election petition therefore remained validly entertained and the disqualification was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an election petition filed beyond the prescribed time and containing a defective verification could nonetheless be proceeded with after condonation of delay and amendment of verification; (ii) Whether the findings of corrupt practice recorded by the Election Tribunal were open to interference in appeal.

Issue (i): Whether an election petition filed beyond the prescribed time and containing a defective verification could nonetheless be proceeded with after condonation of delay and amendment of verification.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated compliance with the time limit and verification requirements as matters first for the Election Commission and, thereafter, for the Election Tribunal if the petition was not dismissed under section 85. The proviso to section 85 empowered the Election Commission to condone delay on sufficient cause being shown, and the Court held that this discretion could be exercised even without a formal application and without the petitioner's personal appearance. The Tribunal's power under section 90(4) was held to extend to deciding whether to dismiss or not dismiss a petition notwithstanding non-compliance, but not to review a valid order of condonation already made. On the facts, the short delay and the amendment of verification were treated as properly dealt with within the statutory framework.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable and the objections based on delay and defective verification failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the findings of corrupt practice recorded by the Election Tribunal were open to interference in appeal.

Analysis: The Court confined itself to the permissible scope of interference under article 136 and declined to reappreciate evidence as a court of further appeal on facts. The findings that the appellant induced withdrawal of a candidate on a promise of employment and used a bus for conveying voters were held to be supported by evidence and not perverse. Since any one of the proved corrupt practices was sufficient to sustain the election petition, the order setting aside the election could not be disturbed.

Conclusion: The findings on corrupt practice were upheld and were not open to interference.

Final Conclusion: The election petition was validly entertained, the factual findings sustaining the election disqualification were accepted, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In election matters, condonation of delay under the statutory proviso and the Tribunal's discretion under the non-obstante provision are final within the election scheme, and findings of fact supported by evidence are not disturbed in appeal absent perversity.

---