IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16827 of 2008 Smt.Malti Devi, wife of Lalan Kumar, resident of village-Babujiwan, P.O.- Fatki, P.S.-Madhepur, District-Madhubani. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Election Commissioner, Bihar State Election Commission, Patna, Bihar. 3. The Collector-cum-District Election Officer, Madhubani. 4. The District Panchayat Officer, Madhubani. 5. The Block Development Officer-cum-Election Officer, Madhepur, P.S.- Madhepur, District-Madhubani. 6. Smt. Anu Devei, wife of Sri Sanjay Kumar, resident of village-Fatki, P.S.- Madhepur, District-Madhubani. 7. Smt. Kali Sirain, wife of Mahesh Mishra. 8. Smt. Kaushalya Devi, wife of Madhuri Mukhiya. 9. Smt. Nunu Daiu, wife of Suresh Yadav. 10. Smt. Sunaina Devi, wife of Krishna Kumar Jha. 11. Smt. Hira Devi, wife of Shesh Narayan Choudhary. 12. Smt. Geeta Devi, wife of Sushil Choudhary. 13. Smt. Tekari Devi, wife of Ganesh Pandit. 14. Smt. Sita Devi, wife of Nunu Yadav. Respondent nos.7 to 14 are residents of village-Banki, P.S.-Madhepur, District-Madhubani. 15. Smt. Gangiya Devi, wife of Ram Chandra Mahto. 16. Smt. Reena Devi, wife of Deb Narayan Sah. 17. Samina Khatoon, wife of Bikru Nadaf. 18. Smt. Sunita Devi, wife of Mohanjee Rout. Respondent nos.15 to 18 are residents of village-Fatki, P.S.-Madhepur, District-Madhubani. -Respondents. ----------- 02 24.02.2010 The petitioner was elected Mukhiya whose election was challenged by respondent no.6 by election petition before the Munsif, Jhanjharpur being PEW 13 of 2006. The petitioner was opposite party no.5 in the said election petition. Petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 18.08.2008 and the order dated 24.09.2008, passed by the Election Tribunal refusing to permit the petitioner to be examined as a witness and closing her case has - 2 - come to this Court. Notice was issued to the election-petitioner, respondent no.6, which have been validly served but has not appeared. By interim order this Court had stayed further proceedings in the Court of Munsif, notwithstanding this no one has appeared to contest the writ petition on behalf of respondent no.6, the election petitioner. Petitioner states that she was ill and as such time petition was filed in the Court below. The Court was fixing dates at a very short interval of one or two days. The result was that she being ill could not be present and that was taken by the Court below as delaying tactics, as such, her evidence was closed. Having considered the matter and seen the progress, in my view, no harm would be caused in adjourning the matter and then allowing the petitioner to be examined. By not doing so, the result is that the trial which could have finished within a month in the year 2008 now linger up to 2010, merely of refusal to grant an adjournment of a week. Who benefited? No one but the petitioner whose election was challenged. This is what should be kept in mind by the Election Tribunal where there anxiety to do quick justice results in delayed justice or no justice. It should be remembered that justice delayed is justice denied but equally true is justice hurried is justice buried. Neither of the two consequences is welcome by the Court. There has to be just balance between the two. - 3 - In that view of the matter, I am constrained to set aside the order and direct the learned Election Tribunal to fix a date in the case for examination of the petitioner and her cross examination and then proceed in accordance with law expeditiously. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)