IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16026 of 2008 PRABHAWATI DEVI,W/o Bipin Bihari Upadhyay, resident of village Mangraon, P.S.Nasriganj Dist. Rohtas--------------------petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The State Election Commissioner,Bihar,Patna 3.The District Election Officer, Rohtas(Panchayat) 4.The Block Election Officer, Nasriganj (Panchayat) 5.Asha Upadhyay, wife of Ajay Kumar Upadhayay resident of village Mangraon, P.S.Nasriganj (O.P.Kachhawan) Dist.Rohtas----respondents with CWJC No.13428 of 2008 ASHA UPADHYA, wife of Ajay Kumar Upadhya, resident of village Mangraon, P.S. Nasriganj (O.P. Kachhawan),Dist.Rohtas at Sasaram-Petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The District Election Officer(Panchayat-cum- Collector, Rohtas 3.The Election Officer(Panchayat) cum Block Development Officer, Nasriganj, Rohtas 4.Prabhawati Devi, wife of Bipin Bihari Upadhya, resident of village Mangraon, P.S. Kachawan(O.P.) Nasriganj,Rohtas ---respondents with CWJC No.14109 of 2008 ASHA UPADHYA, wife of Ajay Kumar Upadhya, resident of village Mangraon, P.S. Nasriganj, (O.P. Kachhawan) Dist.Rohtas----petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The State Election Commissioner,Bihar,Patna 3.The District Election Officer (Panchayat- cum-Collector, Rohtas 4.The Election Officer (Panchayat) cum-Block Development Officer, Nasriganj,Rohtas 5.Prabhawati Devi, wife of Bipin Bihari Upadhya, resident of village Mangraon, P.S. Nasriganj (O.P. Kachhawan), District Rohtas-----------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner:Mr.Om Prakash Upadhyay For the State:Mr.Binay Kumar,A.C.to G.P.5 2 For Election Commission:Mr.Sanjeev Nikesh (in C.W.J.C.No.16026/08) For the petitioner:Mr.Anil Kr.Mishra, Mr.Rishikesh Ojha For the State:Mr.Binay Kumar,A.C.to G.P.5 For the Election Commission:Mr.Sanjeev Nikesh (in C.W.J.C.No.13428/08) For the petitioner:M/S Anil Kr.Mishra,R.Ojha For the State :Mr.Anant Kr.Bhaskar,A.C.to S.C.2 For the Election Commission:Mr.Sanjeev Nikesh (in C.W.J.C.No.14109/08) ----- 3. 19.2.2009 These three writ applications, pertaining to the same Election Petition no.2 of 2006, pending in the court of Munsif, Bikramganj, Rohtas, for about 2-1/2 years, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. C.W.J.C.No.16026 of 2008 has been filed by the election petitioner herself in which the only direction sought is that the election petition may be disposed of expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment at the behest of any of the candidates who intend to delay the disposal of the said petition. C.W.J.C.Nos. 13428/08 and 14109/08 have been filed by the winning candidate Asha Upadhya. In the first writ application (CWJC 13428/08) the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 6.5.2008 (Annexure-1) by which the learned Munsif has 3 rejected the petition filed by herself for taking her evidence by a Pleader Commissioner appointed by the court. The ground taken for the same is illness of her son for which it has been prayed on the basis of certain prescriptions that he is being treated from time to time at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. It is stated that he has received serious injury on his head due to which he frequently falls down. Learned Munsif has rejected the said petition on the ground that no prescription after 4.7.2007 has been brought on the record and she being a public representative is herself not unwell and in the said circumstances she could definitely come for her own evidence during the said time and the court could have accommodated her as per the exigency of the situation. This Court does not find any illegality in the order of the learned Munsif. C.W.J.C.No. 14109 of 2008 has been filed for setting aside the order dated 24.7.2008 passed by the Munsif, Rohtas, by which the petitioner Asha Upadhya had sought time for 4 bringing her witnesses. The said prayer has been rejected and her evidence has been closed and the matter has been put up for argument. In the impugned order the court below has dealt with the entire issue how the winning candidate- petitioner Asha Upadhya has sought to delay the matter and how earlier also she has been given ample opportunity to produce her witnesses and subsequently a large number of witnesses have also been examined but on 24.7.2008, the date of the order, she did not produce any witness, rather she has only produced a second list of witnesses in order to delay the matter. For the said reasons, the court has come to the conclusion that the entire object of the winning candidate is to delay the election petition and, accordingly, the court closed her evidence and placed the matter for argument. This Court finds that the order of the learned Munsif is fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same does not call for any interference. In the aforesaid circumstances, C.W.J.C.No. 16026 of 2008 is disposed of and 5 C.W.J.C.Nos. 13428 of 2008 and 14109 of 2008 are dismissed. The learned Munsif is directed to proceed in the matter on a day-to-day basis and dispose of the Election Petition No. 2 of 2006 within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/