1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 915 OF 2010 Bhore Madhubala Ramesh .. Petitioner Vs. Poonam Jagdish Pandey & Ors. .. Respondents Mrs. Seema Sarnaik for the Petitioner. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1035 OF 2010 Poonam Jagdish Pandey .. Petitioner Vs. Nashik Municipal Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni for the Petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Kadam i/b M/s. J. Shekhar & Co.for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. Date : 22nd February, 2010. P.C. 1. The election process which is challenged in an election petition is the matter in dispute. The election petition was inter alia filed for recounting of certain ballet papers, declaring invalid certain ballet papers, for tendering the votes, for declaring the petitioner as elected and for declaring the election as cancelled. In the election petition 2 an interim application has been taken out after evidence of three witnesses on behalf of petitioner has been led and the respondents in petition has filed pursis that they would not lead any evidence. The stage of oral evidence is therefore over. 2. The documentary evidence is contained in a sealed packet in which there are certain votes including tendered votes. The sealed packet would contain the truth of the case of the parties. No matter what the witnesses may have said, the truth would emerge only when the votes, which are challenged as having been cast without following due process of law, are seen. 3. The petitioner’s interim application is in terms of prayer clause (b) of the petition. 4. Seeing the actual documentary evidence of both the parties would be imperative for the learned judge to decide upon the case of the parties. 3 5. The respondent’s contention is that the sealed packet can be opened only after the corrupt practice is proved. Corrupt practice is to be proved by oral as well as documentary evidence. It is for the learned Judge to see, appreciate and analyse both these evidences. It would be required even without the application in that behalf, for the judicial officer to actually see the votes cast. He would have the prerogative, the right as well the obligation to see the very documentary evidence to that end. Hence, the application is not without substance. Even after the arguments are heard, the presiding officer may, in his discretion, see the documentary evidence for himself. Upon seeing such documentary evidence, he may require to show it to both the parties and hear further arguments. Such needless procedure can be done away with by seeing what is contained in sealed envelope at the outset itself. Hence, the application is correctly made. A limited order is passed with regard only certain votes. There is no reason why the entire documentary evidence contained in sealed envelope cannot be seen by the presiding officer and even shown to both the parties. Hence, the following order :- 4 :: O R D E R :: 1. Writ Petition No. 915 of 2010 is rejected. 2. Writ Petition No. 1035 of 2010 is allowed with a rider that the Presiding Officer may himself open the sealed envelope and see for himself the votes which are cast. If required by him, he may even allow further arguments based upon the votes cast. 3. Both writ petitions are disposed of accordingly considering each of them as the reply in the other. Rule is granted accordingly. 4. This order is stayed for two weeks. (R. S. DALVI, J.)