IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 2487 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO. 2487 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO. 2487 OF 2007. WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. CIVIL APPLICATION No. CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1903 of 2008. 1903 of 2008. 1903 of 2008. Chandrakant Amruta Bagul ..Petitioner. V/s. Nana Gangadhar Khairnar ..Respondent. Mr Tushar Sonawane, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr Sachin Gite, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 22.08.2008. DATED: 22.08.2008. DATED: 22.08.2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. On the motion made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he is allowed to delete reference to Article 226 of the Constitution of India made in cause title of the petition. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is directed against the order dated 18.5.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yena thereby rejecting application filed under Section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 which requires that the election petition of a defeated candidate must be filed within 15 days from the date of declaration of result. 3. Admittedly, application was filed beyond the period of 15 days from the date of declaration of result. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that time taken for obtaining the certified copy of the declaration of result ought to have been excluded by the parties while calculating limitation. 5. The submission made is misplaced because the election petition which is required to be filed under Section 15 of the Act does not require production of the certified copy of the declaration of the result. Right to contest and challenge the same is a statutory right given by the statute. If the statute does not provide the necessity of filing the certified copy of the declaration of result, then the period for obtaining certified copy cannot be excluded. Thus, the election petition filed was much beyond the period of Limitation. It was barred by Limitation. It was, thus, rightly dismissed by the Court below, holding it to be beyond the period of limitation. 6. The view taken by the Court below is a reasonable and possible view. No case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. 7. In view of disposal of the writ petition, no orders are necessary on civil Application. The same is disposed of accordingly. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)