RAJ KUMAR SINGH v. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, Sone Bhawan, Birchand

THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna through the State Election Commissioner The State Election Commissioner, the State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.

The Returning Officer, Barhara Block, District- Bhojpur at Ara 4. Rajendra Singh, son of Late Ramchandra Singh, Resident of village- Nurpur (Sajahanpur), P.O. Mehulighat, P.S. Barhara, District- Bhojpur at Ara

Ram Suresh Singh, son of Late Nandji Singh, Resident of village- Kudariya, P.O. Parsurampur, P.S. Barhara (Sinha), District- Bhojpur at Ara

Dinesh Singh, son of Late Ramadhar Singh, Resident of village – Jokhari, P.O. Mahauli Ghat, P.S. Barhara (Sinha), District- Bhojpur 7. Dharamraj Singh, son of Raghubans Singh, Resident of village – Jokhari, P.O. Mahuli Ghat, P.S. Barhara (Sinha), District- Bhojpur Triloki Singh, son of Rameshwar Singh, Resident of village- Nargada, P.O. Balua, P.S. Barhara (Krishgarh), District-Bhojpur at Ara Lalan Chaudhary, son of Jagdish Chaudhary, Resident of village- Nargada, P.O. Balua, P.S. Barhara (Krishgarh), District- Bhojpur at Ara 10. Narayan Prasad, son of Guru Shankar Prasad, Resident of village- Nargada, P.O. Balua, P.S. Barhara (Krishgarh), District-Bhojpur at Ara 11. Saroj Devi, wife of Shri Deo Ballabh Singh, Resident of village- Moazampur, P.O. Mahulighat, P.S. Barhara (Sinha) District- Bhojpur at Ara

…………………. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. S.B.K.Mangalam, Advocate For Respondent No.4 :- M/S Rajendra Narain, Makardhawaj Upadhya & For the State Election Commission:- Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate ----------- Sanjeev Kumar Srivastav, Advocates.

16.10.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State Election Commission and learned counsel for Respondent no.4, the Election-petitioner, on whose behalf Vakalatnama has been filed in Court today. The petitioner who is the successful candidate 2 has come to this Court for quashing the order dated 16.8.2008 passed by Munsif 1st, Ara in Election Petition No. 4 of 2006/01 of 2008 by which he has rejected the application dated 14.8.2008 filed by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 8.5.2008 passed by the Munsif 2nd Ara in Election petition No. 4 of 2006 by which the evidence of the petitioner has been closed and the matter was put up for final argument. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of the petitioner ought not to have been closed without permitting him to examine the other witnesses and particularly the official witnesses since the election has been challenged on account of the irregularities in the counting of ballot papers in which regard it is only the official witnesses who are independent witnesses. It is further submitted that the petitioner has examined as many as 16 witnesses and was in the process of examining more when suddenly his evidence has been closed by the previous Court. Subsequently transferee court has dismissed his petition for recall of the earlier order dated 8.5.2008 by the impugned order dated 16.8.2008. It is submitted by learned counsel that since the official witnesses have been made parties to the election petition, although they were not required to be so made under Section 137 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, the petitioner was under the impression that they would be examined by the Government Pleader who was appearing on their behalf but the same having not been done the petitioner has been put to 3 serious prejudice in his defence. Learned counsel for the election-petitioner, respondent no. 4, on the other hand, submits that from the very beginning the petitioner has been acting in a manner so as to delay the disposal of the election petition. It is submitted that first of all the matter was delayed at the stage of filing of the written statement on his behalf. Subsequently the petitioner challenged the very maintainability of the election petition by filing CWJC No. 2689/2007 before this Court which was ultimately dismissed on

29.8.2007. Again the petitioner failed to produce all his witnesses despite 33 dates having been granted to him in that respect and only on six out of 33 dates the petitioner had produced witnesses and no action was taken by him on as many as 27 dates. Not satisfied with the same the petitioner in order to further delay the matter had filed a transfer petition before the District Judge which was allowed and the matter was thereafter transferred to the Court of Munsif 1st, Ara. It is thus, submitted that throughout the action of the petitioner has been to any how delay the disposal of the election petition and thus he is not entitled to any indulgence by this Court. On a consideration of circumstances of the case and perusing the impugned order dated

16.8.2008 this Court finds that the court below has considered all aspects of the matter and come to the conclusion that the petitioner has examined his witnesses only on six dates out of 33 dates. The 4 Court has taken note of the fact that the petitioner has not filed any list of witnesses. For the said reasons the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to any further indulgence in the matter. It is evident that the petitioner had at no time sought to examine the official witnesses as his witnesses which he could have done if he was of the view that their examination was essential as the election has been challenged on the basis of the irregularities in the counting of ballot papers. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any ground for interfering with the impugned order dated

16.8.2008. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)