Dr. Narottam Mishra vs Election Commission Of India And Ors. on 18 May, 2018
20. It was contended that the EC issued the show cause notice on
15.01.2013, after a period of four years, when the term of the Assembly of
2008 elections were almost over, and passed the impugned order on
23.06.2017, after a period of another 4 years. Consequently, it was
LPA 480/2017 Page 12 of 80
submitted that the EC acted in violation of Rule 89 firstly in issuing notice
after 4 years of the first filed complaint (by Shri Bharti on 13.04.2009) then
and passing the order only on 23.06.2017, by taking action after about 9
years. Counsel cited, inter alia, Mahendra v. State Election Commission
(2005) 1MPL 245 and Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra (2014) 3 SCC 430 to emphasize this aspect. On the subject of
delay, learned counsel for Dr. Mishra contended that under Rule 89 read
with section 10A, RPA, 1951, the EC is obliged to act with promptitude and
with reasonable speed under the circumstances.