1 WP 7755.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7755 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. V.D.Patnoorkar Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for State. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :05/10/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present petitioner filed Election Petition U/s 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ] challenging the election of the present respondent no. 1. The same is rejected on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Mr. Patnoorkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact due to wrong advise, the petitioner had earlier filed proceedings U/s 16 of the said Act. After the same were disposed of, then the present Election Petition is filed. The learned counsel contends that the law of 2 WP 7755.2011 Limitation is founded on public policy and the said expression “ sufficient cause ” is elastic and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the application for condonation of delay. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industry Ltd. V/s Gujrat Industrial Development Corporation and another reported in 2010 ( 5 ) Mh. L.J. - 262. The learned counsel further contends that even if there is no provision in the said Act for condonation of delay, still the Court can invoke the provisions of Section 29 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. The Election Petition is in the nature of original proceedings. Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not apply to the original proceedings. The law governing the Election Petition is a technical law. When the authority considering the Election Petition does not have any jurisdiction and power to condone the delay, no question arises of considering the sufficient cause. The Judgment in the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industry Ltd. [ supra ] relied by Mr. Patnoorkar, the learned counsel would not be applicable in the present case in view of the fact that the said provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be inapplicable in the present proceedings. 4. In light of the above, no error is committed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) while passing the impugned order. 3 WP 7755.2011 5. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 7755.2011 4 WP 7755.2011