1 AEP 8 of 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO.8 OF 2011 IN ELECTION PETITION NO.1 OF 2009 Indur Kartar Chhugani .. Applicant -versus Ms. Priya Dutt .. Respondent. Mr. Indur K. Chhugani, the petitioner in person. Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel alongwith Mr. L.M. Acharya i/b Satyam Acharya for respondent . Mr. Darius Khambata, Additional Solicitor General with Adv. Mr. Karnik, for High Court. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 26th September, 2011 P.C. 1. By this application, the applicant had sought permission to video record the court proceeding that may be conducted in Election Petition No.1 of 2010. 2. In the order dated 12th September, 2011, it had been specifically observed that since trial would change the course of conducting court proceeding and this would require deeper scrutiny. Only in order to avoid loss of time till this application was decided by this Court, the Registry had been directed to prepare themselves should this application allowed. 2 AEP 8 of 2011 3. Notice of the application had been sent to the Registrar General of the Court and an affidavit has been filed by Registrar (Legal and Research), High Court, Bombay, which states that the issues regarding video recording of a court proceeding, will have to be considered administratively by the High Court. Since the Administrative Committee of the High Court had not taken any decision for video recording of a proceeding in a Court, the Registrar, (Legal and Research) had prayed for recalling the directions given in the order dated 12th September, 2011. These directions were given only in order to avoid loss of time, should video recording be permitted. Since the High Court has yet not taken any decision for video recording of proceeding in a court, there is no question of the proceeding in this case being video recorded. Therefore, there is no question of the Registrar (Legal and Research) evolving the modalities for recording the proceeding or preparing the equipment that may be required for video recording in the Court proceeding. With this clarification, application No.8 of 2011 is rejected. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)