Order There is some delay in preferring this Review Application and, accordingly, an Application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the Review Application. We have considered averments made in the Application for condonation of delay in filing the Review Application and, being satisfied with the sufficiency of the reasons furnished therein, allow the same. 2. In this case, Mr. Arvind Vashisth was served with a copy of the review petition. He refused to accept the same on the ground that he has no instructions on behalf of the writ petitioner. Ultimately, writ petitioner could only be served by substituted service published in a Newspaper settled by the Registry, in terms of the directions of this Court. By the judgment and order under review, at the instance of the writ petitioner, a provision of law, contained in U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, as applicable to this State, has been struck down. Before doing so, no notice was given to the Advocate General, nor any notice was given to the public that writ petition is seeking to challenge a very important provision of law. The net effect of the judgment and order under review is that, if, after election, it transpires that a person has, on a false claim, been elected on a reserved post of a Gram Panchayat, he cannot be removed unless an election petition is filed and the same succeeds. The fact remains that the law does not contemplate that an election petition can be presented after 45 days of the election. The law also does not contemplate any power in the forum entitled to entertain election petitions to condone delay in filing the same. A person, who has been declared elected on a reserved post by taking recourse to falsity and if that falsity comes to light six months after the election; the person, in view of this judgment, will be entitled to continue to retain the elected post. We think that the applicant has been able to make a good case for review of the judgment under review. 3. Mr. Arvind Vashisth submits that he has no instructions in the matter. 4. Review Application is allowed. The judgment under review is recalled. Writ Petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the writ petition to the learned Advocate General in course of seven days. 3. Mr. Arvind Vashisth submits that he has no instructions in the matter. 4. Review Application is allowed. The judgment under review is recalled. Writ Petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the writ petition to the learned Advocate General in course of seven days. Writ petitioner is granted leave under Order I Rule VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, with a direction upon him to publish an appropriate notice in the form of an Advertisement to be settled by the Registry and to be published in a Newspaper to be nominated by the Registry. Requisites therefor be furnished within seven days from today. 5. Let the writ petition for consideration after notice is served in the manner as above.