IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1704 of 2008 ATIK AHMAD ANSARI, son of Md.Sabbir Ahmad resident of village Karhara, P.S.Benipatti Dist. Madhubani-----------------petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Munif Rain, son of Abdul Rain Marhum, resident of village Karhara Tole Biradipur P.S.Benipatti, Dist. Madhubani-respondent 1st set 3.Hamid Rain, son of Hanif Rain Marhum, resident of village Sohtaul, P.S. Benipatti, Dist. Madhubani 4.Chhotu Sahni, son of late Sahdeo Sahni, resident of village Sahtaul, P.S. Benipatti Dist. Madhubani 5.Jamal Rain, son of Taib Rain Marhum, resident of village Chanpura,Pachhimbari Tola, P.S. Benipatti, Dist. Madhubani 6.Prema Sahni, son of not known, resident of village Chanpura Tola Simarpur, P.S. Benipatti, Dist. Madhubani 7.Pheku Das, son of not known, resident of village Chanpura Pachhimbari Tole, P.S. Benipatti, Dist. Madhubani 8.Bhogendra Mandal, son of late Asharfi Mondal resident of village Karhara, Bichala Tole, P.S.Benipatti, Dist. Madhubani 9.Laxman Thakur, son of Harendra Thakur, resident of village Karhara Purwari Tole, P.S.Benipatti, Dist. Madhubani 10.Bandeshwar Mandal, son of late Basudeo Mandal, resident of village Karhara, Bichala Tole, P.S. Benipatti,Dist. Madhubani 11.Samiullah, son of Md.Navijan, resident of village Sohraul, P.S.Benipatti, Dist. Madhubani---------respondent 2nd set 12.Election Officer (Panchayat Raj Election Zone)-cum-Block Development Officer, Benipatti, Dist. Madhubani 13.Motim, son of not known, clerk in the office of Block Development Officer, Benipatti, Dist. Madhubani 14.District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Madhubani---respondent 3rd set ------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mrs.Namrata Mishra For respondent no.2:M/S Alok Kumar,Arjun Kumar Akash Chaturvedi. 2 ----- 3. 4.3.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no.6, learned counsel for the State and also learned counsel for the State Election Commission. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 5.12.2007 passed in Election Case No. 2/06 by Munsif, 2nd, Madhubani, by which the application dated 21.11.2007 filed on behalf of the petitioner to recall the order dated 12.11.2007 by which the evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed, has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the Mukhiya was engaged in flood relief work and for other reason could not produce the witnesses on the last date and, thus, the evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed by the learned Tribunal which is harsh on the part of it. The petitioner, therefore, ought to be granted one more indulgence in the matter. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6, on the other hand, submits that on four earlier occasions, i.e., on 25.5.2007, 3 1.8.2007, 14.9.2007 and 12.11.2007 also the evidence of the petitioner was closed by the learned Tribunal but on every time on the basis of assurances given by the petitioner the orders had been recalled and he had been granted repeated opportunity to lead his evidence. It is submitted that a long list of 23 witnesses has been submitted by the petitioner but only three could be examined and the petitioner somehow has acted so as to delay the decision of the election case until he completes five years. It is submitted that on every occasion the petitioner has been filing time petition seeking long dates as part of his dilatory tactics. On a consideration of the aforesaid submissions and the impugned order dated 5.12.2007, this Court finds that the prayer made by the petitioner was not bona fide, being a winning candidate he has been somehow or other trying to delay the disposal of the election case. In the said circumstances, the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the petition of the petitioner. 4 In the above facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. This Court notices that even in the present matter while notices were issued by the Court to the election petitioner- respondent no.2 in the present writ petition, no stay had been granted and yet the court below has chosen not to proceed in the matter. This Court is surprised at the inaction of the learned Tribunal when this Court had not passed an order of stay in not proceeding with the election petition. It is expected that the learned Munsif will proceed in the matter on a day-to-day basis and will dispose of the election case within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before it. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/