IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPLICATION IN ELECTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2010 IN ELECTION PETITION NO. 5 OF 2007 SMT. FERMEENA P. KHAUNTE ... Applicant Versus DAYANAND NARVEKAR AND 15 ORS., ... Respondents Shri S. M. Walawaikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Shri A. Gaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 23rd April, 2010 P.C.:- Heard Shri S. M. Walawaikar, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner and Shri S. G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.1. The present application has been filed by the Petitioner in Election Petition No.5 of 2007 for staying the trial of the said Election Petition, on the ground that some of the issues in both the petitions are the same. At the time of hearing, Shri Walawaikar, learned Counsel on behalf of the said Petitioner has submitted that only Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in Election Petition No.4 of 2007 are common to Issue No.3 in Election Petition No.5 of 2007, being issues regarding distribution of C.D's, T shirts and caps to the voters by the Respondent, the returned candidate. Shri Walawaikar, learned Counsel has submitted that the Election Petition No.5 of 2007 be stayed till the final disposal of Election Petition No.4 of 2007 as some of the issues are common. On the other hand, Shri S. G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel has no objection for the grant of the application i.e. for staying the trial of Election Petition No.5 of 2007 till the disposal of Election Petition No.4 of 2007. However, learned Senior Counsel submits that all the issues raised in both the petitions are substantially the same except for one issue as regards the cash transaction which was not pressed by the Petitioner in Election Petition No.4 of 2007. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that although the Petitioners are different, for all purposes, they being husband and wife should be considered as one Petitioner and in fact the connection in between the two can be seen from para 11 of Election Petition No.4 of 2007 wherein the Petitioner Pradeep stated that he was not raising the issue of all other corrupt practices raised by Petitioner Fermeena in her petition. There is no dispute that two petitions have been filed by the husband Pradeep(4/07) and wife Fermeena(5/07), first being an elector and the other a defeated candidate at the elections held on 2-6-2007. Both the petitioners are represented by the same Counsel. Issues in the first petition were framed on 27-6-2008 and in the second petition on 9-1-2009. Affidavit in evidence in the first petition was filed on 25-7-2008 and the Election Petition No.4 of 2007 is at the stage of Respondent's evidence which is at its fag end. Affidavit in evidence in the second election petition was filed on 3-4-2009 and it is being adjourned for one reason or the other at the request of one or the other party. The submission made by Shri Walawaikar may not be in accordance with the tenor of the application under consideration as pointed out by Shri Dessai but Shri Walawaikar, learned Counsel is right in contending that only Issue No.3 in Election Petition No.5 of 2007 is common with Issue Nos.1 and 2 in Election Petition No. 4 of 2007. There are 8 other issues which are to be tried in Election Petition No.5 of 2007. If the Court started with the trial of the first petition, it was only because, it was filed/numbered first in point of time. I am quite surprised at the stance taken by Respondent in not opposing the application filed by the Petitioner Fermeena for staying the trial of Election Petition No.5 of 2007. Does the Respondent wish to spend the remaining two years of his term in the Court, defending the petition? For all purposes, both the Election Petitions have got to be considered as filed by two different individuals and only because they have been filed by husband and wife respectively, one being an elector and the other a defeated candidate cannot bring them within the purview of Section 87 of Representation of People's Act, 1951 r/w Section 10 of C.P.C. Parties in the two petitions are not the same nor it could be said that one is previously instituted to the other. That apart, I am not inclined to grant the application notwithstanding the concession made on behalf of the Respondent for more than one reason. Firstly, the application has been made belatedly. Secondly, the Court must keep in mind the mandate of Section 86(6) of the Representation of People's Act, 1951 which requires the Court to try an Election Petition as expeditiously as possible it further requires that an endeavour should be made to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date on which the Election Petition is presented to the Court. We cannot expect a returned candidate to be busy in Court during the tenure of all five years instead of doing public duties, for which he is elected. In fact, the petitions are proceeding at a snail's pace on account of either of the parties. One could understand that the Petitioner Fermeena had filed an application for consolidation or amalgamation of the petitions because some of the issues were common but unfortunately that is not the case. Three years are almost over from the time the elections were held and it looks as if the Petitioner wishes the Respondent to be engaged in her petition for the balance period. Surprisingly, the Respondent has no objection. The Court cannot be a party to such an arrangement. Consequently, the application is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.