Election Petition No. 1 of 2012 · High Court

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P K MUSAHARY Heard Mr. M Pertin, learned counsel for the applicant. This application has been filed under Section 116 B(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by t he respondent No.1/returned candidate in election petition No.1 of 2012 seeking stay of operation of the judgment and order dated 12.11.2012 passed by this cour t in the aforesaid election petition. Mr. Pertin, learned counsel for the appli cant submits that due to intervening holidays the certified copy of the aforesai d judgment and order could be obtained only yesterday (15.11.2012) due to which the applicant could not proceed for filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Now that the applicant has received the certified copy of the judgment, he would be proceeding soon to Delhi to consult his counsel and file an appe al. It is stated in paragraph 6 of the application that the Election Commission of India as well as the Speaker of the Arunachal Assembly has not yet taken any initiative to comply with the judgment and order dated 12.11.2012.

I have read t he provision under Section 103 of the R.P.Act, 1951 which requires the High Cour t to intimate the substance of the decision to the Election Commission and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly concerned to send an authenticated copy of t he decision to the Election Commission of India. At this stage, Mr. P K Deka, learned counsel, who was one of the advocates appe aring for the petitioner in the election petition, made a request to adjourn the matter till Monday (19.11.2012) to enable him to obtain instructions from his c lient and make necessary submissions opposing the present application. It appea rs that since the election petition has been disposed of finally, the counsel who appeared for the election petitioner, has no more authority or power to app ear unless fresh power is filed. But it appears that for all fairness the applic ant furnished a copy of this Misc. Application to Mr.

Deka, learned counsel but he refused to receive it, may be obviously due to the technical difficulty for want of power or instructions from the election petitioner. Provision has been made under Section 116 A of the Representation of People Act to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court from every order made by t he High Court under Section 98 or Section 99 within a period of 30 days from the date of order of the High Court. Provision has also been made under Section 116 B of the R.P.Act to stay the operation High Court’s order. In the present appl ication a prayer has been made for staying the operation of the judgment and ord er of this court dated 12.11.2012 inasmuch as the election of the returned candi date (present applicant), has been declared void and the election petitioner has been declared elected as member of the 20-Tali (ST) Assembly Constituency. In my considered view, since the statutory provisions have been made for prefe rring an appeal and stay of operation of the judgment and order of the High Cour t, it is deemed fit and proper to stay the operation of the aforesaid judgment a nd order for a limited period so as to enable the applicant to avail the afores aid opportunity.