IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2199 of 2010 1. BALAJEE PATHAK s/o late Kapildeo Pathak, resident of Mohalla- Shivpuri (Kailash enclave), P.S. Lal Bahadur Shastri Nagar,Patna-23,District-Patna. 2. Ram Sandesh Roy s/o Sri Rajnandan Roy, resident of Kamla Niwas Kath Pool South Mandiri,P.S. Budha Colony, District- Patna. Versus 1. THE CHAIRMAN,BIHAR BAR COUNCIL,Patna. 2. Advocate General/Chairman Bihar Bar Council, Patna. 3. Secretary, Bihar Bar Council, Patna. 4. Returning Officer, Bihar Bar Council Election, 2010. ----------- 2 5.3.2010 The two petitioners are contesting candidates for the election to the Bihar State Bar Council. The elections are held under the Bar Council Election Rules, 1985. Petitioners alleged that after the votes were polled and brought to Patna from all over the State, the Returning Officer did not permit any of the candidates or their agents for being present in the room where counting was being done in direct violation of Rule 38 of the Rules, which caused severe prejudice to the candidates inasmuch as Rule 47 gives a candidate an opportunity to petition for recount at the time of counting. As petitioners and their agents were not allowed to be present in the counting room, there was no occasion for them to make such protest. Thus, the counting process stands vitiated and the results, so declared, though not yet notified in the gazette, are not valid results. Various contemporaneous facts have been pleaded to show that all was not well in the counting. Copies of this writ petition were served on learned Advocate General, Bihar, Patna, who also happens to be the ex officio Chairman of the Bihar State Bar Council. 2 He points out that the elections were held on intervention by this Court and pursuant to order of this Court. The ballot papers having been brought to Patna, the number of candidates being about 169, were too large to be accommodated in the accommodation available for counting .The Returning Officer decided that in the counting hall except for counting personals no one would ordinarily be permitted. The entire proceedings were televised through close circuit television and arrangement had been made just outside where Shyamyanas were erected for any one to see the entire process.. Mr. Advocate General further states that wherever there was genuine objection raised, people were allowed to step into the hall. Having considered the matter , in my view, one has to take a practical pragmatic view of the statute. It would be another thing if the petitioners had pleaded the fact that there was television display, which was inadequate or did not cover the matter. Petitioners in the writ petition have not whispered that there was arrangement of alternative method for viewing. That apart considering the difficulty, it was the decision of the Returning Officer to make alternative display system. If the alternative display system was there, in my view, merely because candidates and their agents were not allowed to be present in the counting hall, cannot be a ground for nullifying the process simplicitor. More over, learned Advocate General states that after the first round of counting was done, when the first round was being scrutinized again, candidates and their agents, who wanted 3 to come were permitted inside to see the scrutiny. In my view, these facts show that prima facie there was no irregularity committed which necessitates the intervention of this Court at this stage. If petitioners have any concrete facts that would be subject matter of an election dispute, which they may raise after the results are notified. Thus, the writ petition merits no consideration at this stage and is dismissed accordingly. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)