FAO No. 5750 of 2009 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 28967-CII of 2009 and CM No. 3197-CII of 2010 and FAO No. 5750 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.4.2011 Daljit Singh .. Appellant v. Election Tribunal-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and others .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. NPS Maan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 11.6.2009, passed by Election Tribunal-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala (for short, `the Tribunal'). Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 147 days has been filed. It is claimed in the application for condonation of delay that after loosing the case before the Tribunal, the applicant-appellant was informed by the counsel that limitation for filing the appeal in this court is 90 days and it is for this reason that the applicant-appellant could not approach this court in time to file the appeal. In terms of Section 100(2) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, period of 30 days has been provided for filing appeal against the order passed by the Election Tribunal. However, the proviso thereto provides that delay can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown. In the present case, the delay in filing the appeal is 147 days. Even if the plea raised by the applicant-appellant in the application is accepted, FAO No. 5750 of 2009 [ 2] the same can be said to be reasonable only for condoning the delay to the extent of 60 days and not beyond that. Further a fact which was not disputed by learned counsel for the parties in the court is that after setting aside the election of the applicant-appellant by the Tribunal on 11.6.2009, fresh election of the Sarpanch has also been held and respondent No. 2- Kaka Singh has been elected as Sarpanch. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find that any case for condonation of delay of 147 days in filing the appeal is made out. Accordingly, both the applications for condonation of delay are dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 29.4.2011 mk