IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5814 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 7th December, 2009. Harmandeep Kaur Petitioner through Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate Versus Jaspal Singh and others. Respondents through Mr. L.S.Virk, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 12.8.2009 passed by the Election Tribunal, Ferozepur, whereby the delay in filing of the election petition by the first respondent, has been condoned without assigning any reasons. The petitioner's case is that she was elected as a Panch of Gram Panchayat, Narainpura on 16.6.2008. According to her, the election could be challenged within 45 days thereafter. No election petition within the said stipulated period is said to have been filed by the first respondent. On 14.2.2009 the first respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2514 of 2009 before this Court, challenging the election of the petitioner. While permitting the first respondent to withdraw his writ petition with liberty to file an election petition, this Court observed that “in view of the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner may seek condonation of delay before the appropriate authority and the Authority will consider this question in accordance with law”. [emphasis applied] Thereafter, the first respondent filed the election petition on 1.8.2009 in which, without any notice to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 12.8.2009 condoning the delay in filing of the election petition, has been passed by the Election Tribunal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the impugned order, I am of the considered view that the same can not sustain in law. If the plea taken by the petitioner were correct, the first respondent did not file any election petition within the stipulated period of limitation and even on the date when he invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the period of limitation had already expired. In these circumstances, it was imperative on the Election Tribunal to dispose of the application for condonation of delay by passing a reasoned order and that too after notice to the petitioner. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 12.08.2009 is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh, in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file her reply to the said application. Dasti. December 07, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE