Writ petition challenging an election tribunal order directing record call for judgment formulation. Court upheld impugned order, dismissing petitioner's claim that specific reasons for record call were mandatory post-hearing.
Writ application dismissed against Sub-Judge's order to call for records of election after arguments.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3951 of 2013
====================================================== 1. Anita Devi Wife Of Pawan Singh Resident Of Village- Lakshmipur, Post- Sinha, P.S.- Krishangarh (Barahara) District- Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission, Bihar, Patna 2. The District Election Officer (Panchayat) Cum-District Magistrate, Bhojpur Ara 3. The Returning Officer (Panchayat)-Cum-Block Development Officer, Ara, Bhojpur 4. Kabita Devi Wife Of Santosh Kumar Singh Resident Of VillageLavkushpur P.S.- Krishangarh (Barahara) P.O.- Sinha District- Bhojpur 5. Kiran Devi Wife Of Prabhu Ojha Resident Of Village- Coal Chapra Varahan, P.S.- Krishnagarh, P.O.- Sinha, District- Bhojpur 6. Champa Devi Wife Of Barhu Ram Resident Of Village- Sinha, P.S.Krishnagarh, P.O.- Sinha District- Bhojpur 7. Devanti Devi Wife Of Asha Nand Singh Resident Of Village & PostSinha, P.S.- Krishanagarh, District- Bhojpur 8. Devanti Devi Wife Of Tarkeshwar Pandey Resident Of VillageLavkushpur, Post- Sinha, P.S.- Krishnagarh, District- Bhojpur 9. Punam Devi Wife Of Rajesh Singh Resident Of Village & Post- Sinha, P.S.- Krishanagarh, District- Bhojpur 10. Munni Begum Wife Of Mainuddin Resident Of Village & Post- Sinha, P.S.- Krishanagarh, District- Bhojpur 11. Rita Devi Wife Of Satyendra Singh Resident Of Village & Post- Sinha, P.S.- Krishanagarh, District- Bhojpur 12. Lalita Devi Wife Of Prayag Singh Resident Of Village- Lakshmipur, Post- Sinha, P.S.- Krishanagarh District- Bhojpur 13. Sunita Devi Wife Of Pappu Singh Resident Of Village- Lakshmipur, Post- Sinha, P.S.- Krishnagarh District- Bhojpur 14. Sunaina Devi Wife Of Triloki Pandey Resident Of Village- Laxmipur, Post- Sinha P.S.- Krishanagarh, District- Bhojpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amit Shrivatava, Adv. Mr.Girish Pandey, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CWJC No.3951 of 2013 (2) dt.18-03-2013
2
Tribunal, Bhojpur, Ara and was registered as Election Case No.2 of 2011. The same, on transfer, is now pending before the learned Sub-Judge-VII. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.2.2013 of the learned Sub-Judge, by which, after conclusion of hearing of the case, he has considered it appropriate to call for the records of the election of the Panchayat Samiti in the interests of justice. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order.
Learned counsel submits that it is settled law that in election matters the approach of the court should be cautious and sanctity and secrecy of the votes should be maintained as far as possible. He also submits that the order for calling for the records of election must be on cogent and reasonable grounds which must be borne out from the order itself. In this connection, he places reliance on two judgments of the Apex Court in the case of R. Narayanan Vs. S.Semmalai and Ors. [1980 (1) SCR 571] and Chandrika Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [2004 (3) PLJR 133 (SC). He also refers to an earlier order passed by the learned Sub-Judge on 01.11.2012, annexed as Annexure-6 with the writ application, to submit that the court itself had decided that, if after analyzing the evidence, recounting becomes necessary, the records will be called for. He submits that in the impugned order of the learned Sub-Judge there is no mention at all as to on what analysis of evidence the learned Sub-Judge felt it necessary to call for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3951 of 2013 (2) dt.18-03-2013
3
records.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and, after perusing the said two orders of the learned Sub-Judge, this Court finds no substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. From the order dated 01.11.2012, it appears that at that stage the arguments on behalf of the applicant was going on. Hence, the court did not consider it necessary to call for the records at that point of time. The learned court below observed that at the time of final disposal of the election case the issues raised by the parties shall be considered. Hence, the order was passed directing the applicant to complete the argument and establish her grounds. It was observed that, thereafter, if the court found it necessary it may call for the records.
The impugned order shows that the same was passed after the arguments were over. It has been noticed in the order that during arguments it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that since the case itself had been filed on the ground of illegalities in counting, in the interest of justice, it was essential to call for the records. The court also noticed that earlier the applicant had filed an application, but on the objection of the present writ petitioner, matter had been deferred. The order shows that hearing of the case had concluded and the learned court below found that for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3951 of 2013 (2) dt.18-03-2013
4
purposes of judgment it was necessary to call for the records. Hence, the impugned order was passed.
Correlating the impugned order dated 06.02.2013 with the earlier order dated 01.11.2012, this Court finds that the matter of calling for the records of the election was pending before the learned Sub-Judge from before. The learned Sub-Judge in fitness of things had decided to take a decision in the matter only after the arguments were concluded. In furtherance of that approach, after the hearing of the case has been concluded, the learned court below has called for the records.
This Court does not find that there was any necessity for the learned court below to indicate the specific evidence placed before it on the basis of which that decision was required to be taken. However, if, after perusal of the records the learned SubJudge finds that his judgment may get materially affected with the findings, it fitness of thing, it will be appropriate for him to hear the parties afresh.
The writ application is dismissed.
(Jayanandan Singh, J)
Arvind/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sub-Judge erred in directing regarding calling records to complete arguments without indicating specific evidence requiring record call.
Whether the appellate court was required to find specific grounds for the direction to call for records of the election.
Whether the Sub-Judge's observation that call for records may be needed after hearing disposal was legally sound.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R. Narayanan Vs. S.Semmalai and Ors.Referred¶7
R. Narayanan Vs. S.Semmalai and Ors. [1980 (1) SCR 571] · Who else cites this
Chandrika Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.Referred¶7
Chandrika Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [2004 (3) PLJR 133 (SC)
Anita Devi
Chief Election Commissioner
District Election Officer
Returning Officer
Kabita Devi
Jayanandan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
