ORDER
D.N. Prasad, J.
1. This is an application for review of the Order dated 13.4.2001 filed under Section 87 of the R.P. Act. 1951 read with Order XLV1I. Rule 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. It is stated that the certified copy of the Order dated 13.4.2001 was obtained, it was sent to Delhi with opinion of the local counsel to make a SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India but on consideration, the same could not be preferred on the ground that there was no reference to the application under Section 87 of the R.P. Act, 1951 read with Order XIV. Rule 2, CPC. It is also stated that if the directions of the Election Commission were not capable to supplant the provisions of Representation of People Act. 1951, it is well within the jurisdiction and power of the Election Commission to issue direction consistent with the provisions of R.P. Act. 1951.
3. Another petition has also been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation act to condone the delay in filing this Review application, on the grounds that after the certified copy of Order dated 13.4.2001 was obtained, it was sent to Delhi alongwith the opinion of the local counsel for filing SLP and it was on 30.5.2001, the respondent/petitioner was advised to move the Review application in the circumstances and as such there was delay of 26 days in filing this review, which may be condoned.
4. On the other hand, rejoinder to the application for review has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/respondent, stating therein that this review application is hopelessly barred by limitation and no sufficient cause has been explained. Even after opening of the Court after summer vacation, this review application could not be filed on 26.5.2001 and for which there is no explanation. It is further stated that the learned counsel for the
respondent/petitioner had argued on all the applications pending before this Hon’ble Court at length and after considering all the applications pending, the order impugned was passed in detail which does not require to be reviewed as well as there is no error on the face of the order and as such this application for review is lit to be dismissed.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted, at the very outset, that there was no reference at all as regards to the application under Section 87 of the R.P. Act. 1951 read with Order XIV. Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as if the directions of the Election Commission were not capable to supplant the provisions of R.P. Act, 1951, it is well within the jurisdiction and power of Election Commission to issue direction consistent with the provisions of R.P. Act, 1951. It is also submitted that it was an admission of the petitioner itself that nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner to assist on her behalf the concerned Returning Officer.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent contended before me that there is no scope further to review the order impugned as the detailed order has been passed considering all the applications pending in the Court as well as this Review application is barred by limitation.
7. For perusal, it is apparent that an application under Section 87(1), R.P. Act, 1951 read with Order XIV. Rule 2, CPC was filed as back as on 9.5.2000, on which day the list of witnesses to be summoned for and on behalf of the respondent was also filed. Another application was also filed by the respondent on the same day for calling the nomination paper of all the candidates, who had contested the Election to Hazaribagh Parliamentary Constituency. Another application was again filed on 23.2.2001 under Order VII. Rule 11. CPC and 81 & 86 of the R.P. Act. 1951.
8. It may be noted here that by Order dated 9.5.2000 nomination paper of all the contesting candidates, as prayed for. by the respondent petitioner was also called for from the Returning Officer concerned.
9. From going through the impugned order, it is clear that all the points raised on behalf of the respondent in course of arguments were taken up and considered and the order impugned was passed considering all
the materials on the record itself and as such the question of being prejudiced of the petition side does not arise, at this stage. Moreover, the entire Election Petition and the material on record will be considered and assessed on the merit of the case itself. Moreover, this application is also time barred and this Review application, even could not be filed on the opening day of the Court after summer vacation for which there appears no sufficient cause assigned.
10. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this Review Application and hence it is dismissed us also being time barred.
11. Review application dismissed.