JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. — Petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of Gatiroutpatna Grama Panchayat in the election held on 22.2.2002. Opp.party No.3, who was also a candidate and lost that election filed an election dispute before the learned Civil Judge,Junior Division, 1st Court, Cuttack on 2.4.2004 vide Elec¬tion Misc. Case No. 1 of 2004 alleging inter alia that the peti¬tioner had four children on the date of nomination and election and was accordingly disqualified u/s 25(v) of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Along with the said election petition opp.party No.3 also filed a petition u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 2 1/2 years in presentation of the election dispute petition on the ground that he made several representations to the Collector about the disqualification of the present petitioner and waited in vain for necessary action on his representations. The prayer for condonation of delay was stiffly resisted by the present petitioner, but learned Civil Judge-cum-Election Commissioner allowed the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the impugned order dated 17.9.2004, Annexure-5 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division a), 1st Court, Cuttack. 2. Mr. A. K. Rath, learned counsel for petitioner submit¬ted that Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1965 is a special law and Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to election peti¬tion filed under that Act. He further submitted that the result of the election of the Sarpanch, Gatiroutpatna Grama Panchayat was declared on 22.2.2002 and the election petition was filed by opp.party No.3 on 2.4.2004 after a lapse of nearly 2 1/2 years, although the stipulated period of provided u/s 31 of the Act is only 15 days and the only explanation was that representations had been made to the Collector. He indicated that according to the contents of the petition u/s 5 of the Limitation Act the last representation to the Collector was filed on 31.5.2002 and no explanation has been offered about remaining period from 31.5.2002 to 2.4.2004. According to Mr. Rath, when there was no explanation for the abnormal delay, there was absolutely no scope for the learned Civil Judge-cum-Commissioner to condone the delay. 3. Mr. According to Mr. Rath, when there was no explanation for the abnormal delay, there was absolutely no scope for the learned Civil Judge-cum-Commissioner to condone the delay. 3. Mr. Gangadhar Tripathy, learned counsel for opp.party No.3 while supporting the impugned order argued that a writ Court should not interfere with the discretion extended by the Court below in condonation of the delay even if the explanation fur¬nished for the delay is not satisfactory. In support of his contention Mr. Tripathy relied on the cases of Jagdish Sawhney v. Harbans Singh and others, AIR 2000 SC 3143 and Gangadeep Pratis¬than Pvt. Ltd. and others v. M/s. Mechano and other, AIR 2005 SC 1958 . 4. Section 31(1) of the Act says that an Election petition shall be presented within 15 days after the date on which the name of the person elected is published u/s 15 of the Act. Dis¬cretion has, however, been given in the proviso that if the petitioner satisfies the Civil Judge that sufficient cause exist¬ed for the failure to present the petition within the period aforesaid the Civil Judge may in his discretion condone such failure. The power for condonation of delay prescribed in the proviso is akin to the provision of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. So the submission of Mr. Rath that there is no scope for condona¬tion of delay in presentation of the election petition is without any force as specific provision available in the Act itself says that delay in presentation of the election petition can be con¬doned by the Civil Judge in seisin of the matter if sufficient cause is shown for failure to present the petition within the prescribed period of 15 days. 5. Admittedly, in the present case the election petition was presented after a lapse of more than 2 years from the date of publication of the result of the election u/s 15 of the Act. The only explanation of opp.party No.3 is that he had made some representations to the Collector concerned and was waiting for action on those representations and that was the cause of delay in presentation of the election petition. The very petition for condonation of delay of the opp.party No.3 says that the last representation to the Collector was filed on 31.5.2002. The very petition for condonation of delay of the opp.party No.3 says that the last representation to the Collector was filed on 31.5.2002. There is no indication in the said petition as to what further follow up action was undertaken by opposite party No.3 after 31.5.2002. So, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay between 31.5.2002. to 2.4.2004. During the course of argument, an additional affidavit was filed by opposite party No.3 indicating that he and the co-villagers were repeatedly ventilating their grievances before the Collector, but the Collector slept over the matter and so, the election dispute petition could not be filed till 2.4.2004. This plea noted in the additional affidavit was not there in the petition filed before the learned Civil Judge-cum-Commissioner for condonation of delay. So, obviously the plea noted in the additional affidavit is an after-thought. From the very plea in the petition for condonation of delay, it is apparent that opposite party No.3 has no sufficient or good explanation for the abnormal delay in presentation of the elec¬tion dispute petition. 6. Relying on the cases of Jagdish Sawhney and Gangadeep Pratisthan Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 argued that a writ Court should not interfere with the discretion extended by the Court below in the matter of condonation of delay. According to him, even if no satisfactory explanation for the delay is there, the Court can condone the delay by exercising its discretion for the sake of equity and justice and once such discretion is extended and delay is con¬doned, the higher Court should refrain from interfering with the order condoning delay. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the peti¬tioner counters this argument and submits that the ratio of the above noted cases are not applicable to the present case as the facts situation are totally different. 7. In Jagdish Sawhney (supra), the appellant in his application for condonation of delay averred that he came to know of the decree when his representative visited the Registrar of Companies and after this knowledge, he filed the appeal. His plea was that since he was not a party to the suit and was unaware of the decree, there was good ground for condonation of delay. His plea was that since he was not a party to the suit and was unaware of the decree, there was good ground for condonation of delay. The Court accepting the plea as genuine, condoned the delay.In Ganga¬deep Pratisthan Pvt. Ltd. (supra), there was a delay of 7 months in presentation of the appeal and explanation of the appellant for part of that period was satisfactory but the explanation offered for rest part was not satisfactory, yet the High Court exercised its discretion and condoned the delay primarily for the reason that the facts alleged by respondent No.1 were of such nature that in the interest of justice, the matter required to be invested. Considering the grave nature of allegations and public interest, the Apex Court declined to interfere with the discretion extended by the High Court. The facts situation of those cases are materially different from the present case. Here opposite party No.3 was himself a candidate for the election of Sarpanch and he was aware of the publication of the result of the election. Though Section 31 of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act provides a period of 15 days only for presentation of any elec¬tion dispute petition, before the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Commissioner, he did not file such petition for nearly two and half years and then came up with a plea that he had made some representations to the Collector. Even if the entire contents of his petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is accepted, still there is no explanation for the period from 31.5.2002 to 2.4.2004. It is to be remembered that an election dispute peti¬tion relates to continuance or otherwise of an elected people’s representative in the office and for that reason the Act has provided specific period of limitation for presentation of the petition. In the proviso to Section 31 also it has been specifi¬cally indicated that sufficient and satisfactory cause must be shown for any delay that may occur in presentation of the elec¬tion petition. So, while considering the petition for condonation of delay in the election dispute case, the concerned Court has to meticulously examine the explanation offered for the delay and only on being satisfied about the explanation for the entire period of delay that the delay should be condoned. So, while considering the petition for condonation of delay in the election dispute case, the concerned Court has to meticulously examine the explanation offered for the delay and only on being satisfied about the explanation for the entire period of delay that the delay should be condoned. Jurisdiction in that aspect vested with the Court has to be exercised judi¬ciously or else that amounts to illegal exercise of jurisdiction. In the present case, the learned Civil Jude-cum-Commissioner without carefully examining the sufficiency of the explanation offered by opposite party No.3 for the delay, allowed the peti¬tion by simply observing that opposite party No.3 had made some representation to the Collector and that he learnt about the number of children of the present petitioner from the people of the locality. The approach of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court, Cuttack, was, casual and his order does not speak how such plea of the opposite party No.3 was sufficient to explain the delay for the period from dated 31.5.2002 to 2.4.2004. Therefore, the aforesaid finding suffers from illegali¬ty. 8. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that there was no good ground for condonation of delay in presentation of the election petition by opposite party No.3. Accordingly, we quash the impugned order dated 17.9.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court, Cuttack. 9. The writ petition is allowed. No cost. P. K. TRIPATHY, J. I agree. Petition allowed.