MC 3452/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICEI.A. ANSARI By making this Misc. application, the respondent-applicant has sought for adjour nment of the hearing of the Election Petition till any date in the first week of January, 2012, and the leave of this Court to allow him to file, on affidavit, his examination-in-chief and also to adduce evidence of his witness in accordanc e with the directions, which have been passed by this Court in connection the pr esent Election Petition. Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel for the respondent-applicant, and Mr. S. Shyam, learned counsel for the Election petitioner-opposite party. The present application, seeking adjournment of hearing of the Election petition, has been resisted by the Election petitioner-opposite party by filing an affidavit. While considering the present application, it needs to be noted that the reasons for seeking adjournment of hearing of the election petition, as pointed out by Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel, are given in paragraph 2 and 3 of the pres ent application. For the sake of clarity as to what grounds have been assigned by the respondent-applicant for seeking adjournment, paragraph 2 and 3 of the pr esent Misc. application are reproduced below: 2. That the humbly applicant/respondent in EP begs to state that he is a Member of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly representing No. 30 Along West (S T) Constituency. In addition, at present, he is holding the charge of Parliamen tary Secretary of various departments including the department of Home, the Cabi net portfolio of Home Department being held by the Chief Minister of Arunachal P radesh. As a part of public duty of the humble applicant, he has been asked to chair a S ecurity Agency Meeting to be attended by the top officials of Arunachal Pradesh Police and other Security Agencies of the State at Itanagar on 07.12.2011. Ther eafter, the Special Session of Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly has been s ummoned to be held on 08.12.2011 whichf has to be attended by the humble applica nt. Immediately thereafter, on 09.12.2011, the humble applicant has to start fo r Aalo as due to the prevailing tense situation in the West Siang District creat ed as a result of suicide of a student of Aalo Higher Secondary School and clash between two segments of students belonging to two tribes at Donyi Polo College at Karnki, Aalo, the applicant has been asked to camp at West Siang District to manage and oversee the law and order situation in the district till 20.12.2011 when the Chief Minister of the State along with the Members of his Council of Mi nisters is due to visit the district and address a public rally at Aalo. In bet ween 11.12.2011 and 20.12.2011, very day except on 19.12.2011 the humble applica nt has to chair different prefixed meetings and other programmes at the district headquarter at Aalo as well as other places, viz. Likabali, Nyorak, Angu, Pobde , etc. 3. That inspite of the impending pressure of public duties, on 06.12.2011, the applicant rushed down and reached his Advocates at Guwahati in the early hou rs of morning to instruct him properly for preparing his evidence-in-affidavit a s well as other matters relating to his defence in the proceeding. However, at about 9-30 A.M. he received an urgent message to return back to Itanagar immedia tely along with His Excellency, the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh to attend an u rgent public duty related with the security of the State. Accordingly, the appl icant could barely instruct his learned counsel to prepare and file the instant applicant and leave for Lokapriya Gopinath Bordoloi Airport at Borjhar on way to Rajbhawan Helipad at Itanagar. In substance, what the respondent-opposite party has attempted to show, in the p resent application, is that because of a meeting of the Security Agency, which c ommenced, at Intanagar, on 07.12.2011, and a Special Session of the Arunachal Pr adesh Legislative Assembly, which was scheduled to be held on 08.12.2011, and, t hereafter, the tense situation prevailing, in the West Siang District, kept the applicant totally engaged. The reasons, assigned by the applicant, are, thus, t o the effect that since 07.12.2011, he has remained busy till 20.12.2011. Opposing the present application, the Election petitioner-opposite party has dis puted and denied the correctness of the reasons, which have been assigned by the applicant. In support of his contention, the Election petitioner-opposite part y has produced a copy of tour programme of the applicant, which was issued on 07 .12.2011, i.e., the date on which the applicant claims to have chaired the meeti ng of the Security Agency. The tour programme, so issued on 07.12.2011, shows t hat the tour was scheduled from 11.12.2011 to 14.12.2011. This tour programme, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Shyam, learned counsel, does not indicate holding of any meeting or any programme in connection with law and order situation of th e district concerned; rather, the said tour programme reflects the participation of the applicant in various local programmes including foundation stone laying ceremony on the occasion of golden jubilee of the Government Higher Secondary Sc hool in the district. In fact, a copy of a WT/FAX message, issued in connection with the said tour programme of the applicant, has also been produced by Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel for the applicant. This tour pragramme too confirms the same tour programme of the applicant, as indicated above. Situated thus, it becomes clear that the respondent-applicant’s present applicat ion does not inspire confidence in the correctness of the reasons assigned by hi m inasmuch as the facts on record do not support that it was the applicant’s eng agement with the prevailing law and order situation that he could not attend to the requirement of filing of his examination-in-chief on affidavit. There is al so no cogent and acceptable reason assigned by the applicant for not being able to produce his remaining witnesses and/or for not taking steps for summoning tho se official witnesses to whom Summons had been allowed to be issued by this Cour t. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, the respondent-applic ant cannot be said to have made out a case for seeking adjournment of hearing of the Election petition. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the examination-in-chief, on affida vit, has not been filed by the respondent, nor has be taken any step, whatsoever , as he ought to have, for the purpose of securing the presence of his witnesses , taken, further hearing of the Election Petition is hereby adjourned and the El ection Petition is directed to be listed for further hearing commencing from 04. 01.2012. Within a week from today, the respondent-applicant shall file his exam ination-in-chief on affidavit and also do the needful for securing the presence of his witnesses, in terms of the directions, which have already been passed by this Court in the Election Petition and also do the needful to file examination- in-chief of those witnesses, who have not been allowed to be summoned. With the above observations and directions, this Misc. Application stands dispos ed of.