Condonation of delay in election petitions requires bona fide diligence; unexplained inaction defeated relief under limitation law.

Condonation of delay in an election petition requires a clear showing of sufficient cause and bona fide diligence. The Bombay High Court found that the petitioner failed to explain the 154-day delay under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and that the conduct after withdrawal of earlier proceedings showed no due diligence, as no election petition was filed within the next ten days while other proceedings were pursued. Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 did not assist the petitioner on these facts, and condoning the delay would have disturbed rights that had already accrued to the returned candidate. The rejection of condonation was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner had shown sufficient cause and bona fides to condone the 154-day delay in filing the election petition under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.

Analysis: The delay was examined against the statutory limitation for an election petition and the applicability of Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The material chronology showed that after withdrawal of the earlier proceedings, no election petition was filed within the next ten days and the petitioner continued to pursue other proceedings instead. On these facts, the absence of due diligence and bona fide conduct was found, and condonation was held to be unjustified because it would unsettle rights that had accrued to the returned candidate.

Conclusion: The delay was not condonable and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the dismissal of the condonation application failed, and the election petition remained barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay in an election petition requires a satisfactory showing of sufficient cause and bona fide diligence, and unexplained inaction that prejudices accrued rights will justify refusal to condone.

---