Tahera Bibi v. Sebati Bhoi & Ors.

13.02.2026

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness, legality and judicial propriety of the impugned judgments as at Annexures-1 and 2 in Election Misc. Case No.16 of 2022 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patnagarh and Election Appeal No.01 of 2024 of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Patnagarh on the grounds inter alia that the decision on disqualification in terms of Section 25(1)(v) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) is illegal and perverse and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.

An election petition was presented before the court of 1st instance under Section 31 of the Act and according to the petitioner, it was entertained despite being barred by limitation, but delay condonation was allowed without notice. In other words, it is alleged that the election petition filed by opposite party No.1 with delay was admitted by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patnagarh without notice to the petitioner and therefore, impugned judgments at Annexures-1 and 2 cannot be sustained in law with any such decision on disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the

Act. Since aggrieved by the decision in Election Misc. Case No.16 of 2022 vide Annexure-1, the petitioner preferred the appeal, but it has been dismissed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Patnagarh. According to the petitioner, the election petition was admitted after the statutory period expired, therefore, without any notice issued thereon, the delay could not have been condoned. It is alleged that the petitioner has not been provided any opportunity of hearing on limitation even though the election petition was accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It has been pleaded on record that there has been a delay of more than four months and hence, the election petition was not to be entertained at all. Referring to the dates and schedule fixed starting from filing of nomination till the election result was declared, it is further pleaded by the petitioner that opposite party No.1 filed the election petition on 14th July, 2022 when the result of the election was declared on 26th February, 2022 and hence, the delay, which was condoned by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patnagarh on 3rd August, 2022. On such ground alone, the petitioner questions the decision of the learned courts below having disqualified her under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act.

Heard Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Das, learned counsel for opposite party No.1.

According to Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, delay of more than four months ought not to have been condoned after filing of the election petition by opposite party No.1. That apart, for no sufficient reason, the delay was condoned. According to Mr. Sahu, learned counsel, before condonation of delay, notice should have been issued to the petitioner but no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before such condonation of delay and even the challenge to the election petition on the ground of limitation has not been accepted. Apart from the above, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patnagarh even though formulated an issue on limitation, but proceeded to hold that the delay is condonable as opposite party No.1 has been able to make out a case for such condonation. The contention of Mr. Sahu, learned counsel is that an election petition with delay is time barred and as such, it is not maintainable. Rather the contention is that such was no election petition when the same was barred by limitation, the fact, which was lost sight of by the learned court below, while dealing with it and disposing of the appeal, hence, the impugned judgments as at Annexures-1 and 2 are liable to be interfered with.

On the contrary, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State would submit that sufficient ground was shown by opposite party No.1 seeking condonation of delay and on a satisfaction reached at, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patnagarh condoned the same even without notice. The further submission is that the order of delay condonation dated 3rd August, 2022 has not been challenged by the petitioner. The contention of Mr. Swain, learned AGA is that this Court is not to entertain any such plea after confirmation of the decision on disqualification by the learned court below. Even in the appeal, such a plea was not accepted as further submitted. With the above submission, it is finally contended that the delay has been rightly condoned and there has been evidence on record vis-a-vis disqualification and hence, the learned court below committed no error for reaching at a conclusion that the petitioner stands disqualified under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act for having more than two children born to her after the cut-off date on commencement of the Amendment Act, 1994.

Mr. Das, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 supported the contention of Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State and cited the following case laws, such as, Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through LRs and others Vrs. Union of India and another of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5867 of 2015; Inder Singh Vrs. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 Live Law (SC) 339 and Jayanti Seth Vrs. State of Odisha and others of this Court in W.P.(C) No.23560 of 2022 disposed of on 21st August, 2024. The contention is that reasonable explanation was offered by opposite party No.1 for the delay in presenting the election petition and even though, no notice was issued, such condonation by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patnagarh is just and proper. The condonation of delay was never challenged by the petitioner, who wholeheartedly participated in the proceeding with the disposal of the election petition and therefore, according to Mr. Das, learned counsel, the decision of the learned courts below cannot be unsettled on any such ground of limitation as has been pleaded by the petitioner.

The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patnagarh considered limitation as one of the grounds while dealing with the question whether the election of the petitioner as the Sarpanch of the GP to be declared as null and void. In course of hearing, evidence was received on issue of disqualification. On an assessment of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patnagarh found that the petitioner is having three children born to herand the third child, namely, Fatima Begum had born on 1st April, 2018, which is much after the cut-off date i.e. 21st April, 1995 and accordingly, concluded that she invited disqualification under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act. Whether opposite party No.1 was to be declared as the returned candidate or otherwise, the same has also been discussed with reference to Section 40 of the Act but at the end, it was followed by a decision on disqualification simplicitor with a direction to opposite party No.3 to take appropriate steps for filling the casual vacancy which has arisen on account of such disqualification having regard to Section 38(2)(b) of the Act. The said decision has been confirmed by the learned court below in the appeal.

As earlier stated, the challenge is entirely based on the plea of limitation. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner confined the argument alleging that the election petition is grossly time barred. No argument has been advanced with regard to the decision on disqualification of the petitioner under Section 25(1)(v) of the Act. Is it that the impugned judgments at Annexures-1 and 2 are liable to be set aside on the ground of limitation as pleaded by the petitioner?

Perused the pleadings on record.

The following decisions, such as, Jayaram Nayak Vrs. Balaram Swain and others dated 27th September, 2022 in W.P.(C) No. 23622 of 2022; Maina Tandia Vrs. Election Officer-cum-B.D.O., Kantamal & others (2008) 105 CLT 407 and Sri Kasteswar Khatua Vrs. State of Orissa & others 2004 (I) OLR 275 have been cited at the Bar besides the decision relied on by Mr. Das, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 earlier mentioned. In Sheo Raj Singh (supra), the Apex Court, while dealing with an issue on limitation, referred to one of its earlier decisions in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vrs. Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107, wherein, there has been an elaborate elucidation on the expression ‘sufficient cause’ occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the aforesaid decision, it has been held and concluded that Legislature conferred power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of the matters on merit. It has also been held therein that sufficient cause employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to empower the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner to subserve the ends of justice. Law is well settled that delay should be condoned, unless, it is grossly culpable. If sufficient cause is shown by a party seeking condonation, the same shall have to be acceded to. Normally a liberal approach is adopted to do substantial justice, although a delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause. It is equally a settled law that a meritorious case cannot be discarded slowly on technical ground of limitation. One of the factors to be taken note of while considering the delay condonation is that substantial justice is paramount.

In the case at hand, after considering the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the decision (supra) and other citations referred to hereinbefore by the respective parties, the question is whether the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patnagarh rightly condoned the delay even without notice. Normally, in case of delay, notice is issued to the other side. Nevertheless, a party is always having the rights to challenge the decision on limitation when condoned without notice. In the case of the petitioner, the order of delay condonation was not immediately challenged, an option which was readily available to her. It is not that in absence of any such challenge to the limitation, such an order cannot be questioned later on. Furthermore, in the proceeding before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patnagarh, a specific issue was framed on limitation and was discussed and at the end, it has been concluded that sufficient cause existed at the time of condonation and therefore, the election petition is maintainable.

Accordingly, it is ordered.