2013 (8) TMI 1067

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....") for condonation of 154 days' delay caused in filing Election Petition No.4 of 2012 under Section 16 of the said Act. 2. The Trial Court has held that on 25-05­-2012, the proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 12 of the said Act were withdrawn and the election petition was filed on 30­7­2012. The period of limitation of 10 days from 17­-02­-2012 being expired on 27-0­2­-2012, neither sufficient cause was furnished, nor bona fide intention was established to seek condonation of delay under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 3. The factual position, which is not in dispute, is as under : Section 16 of the said Act prescribes a period of 10 days for filing an e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing five children at the time of filing of nomination paper for the post of member of the Municipal Corporation, Amravati. During the course of hearing of the case, Adv. Arun Gawande has filed the 'Pursis' on 24.05.2012 and requested to file it, as he desires to file separate proceedings before the Competent Authority. Accordingly, the case filed without proceeding further." Subsequently, the said writ petition was also disposed of on 16­7­2012 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Court and claim all permissible reliefs in the matter was granted. All the contentions in relation to the condonation of delay were also left open for consideration.  The order passed by this Court on 16­-07....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Area Development Authority and another v. Mahesh Jaggumal Sacchani and others, reported in 2007(5) Mh.L.J. 297, it is urged by Shri Naik, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that it is the fraud practised by the respondent No.3 on the Constitution, in the sense that when knowing fully well that there was a fifth child born after the cut­off date, i.e. 13­9­2000, the nomination form was filed and the election was contested.  He submits that the provision of Section 10(1)(i) of the said Act regarding incurring of the disqualification is clearly attracted in the present case and hence dismissing the application for condonation would amount to perpetuating the fraud, which has been practised. 6. The question whether....