IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4509 of 2007 MANMATO DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.7935 of 2008 LALKALI DEVI Versus THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION& ----------- (In C.W.J.C. No. 4509/2008) For the Petitioner :- Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Adv. For the State :- Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey, J.C. to G.P. 18. For the Election Commission :- Mr. Sanjeev Vikesh, Adv. For the Respondent no. 4 to 7 :- Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh, Adv. (C.W.J.C. No. 7935/2008) For the Petitioner :- Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh No. 1 Adv, Mr. Vitesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State: - Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, J.C. to G.P. 1. For the Election Commission :- Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Adv. ---------------------- 7. 10.9.2008 Both the writ applications pertain to the same Election Petition and they have accordingly been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners in both the writ petitions learned counsels for the State and for the respondents. C.W.J.C. No. 7935 of 2008 has been filed by the election petitioner for a direction to the election tribunal to dispose of the election petition filed by the petitioner being Election Petition No. 3/40/2006 countering the dilatory tactics adopted by respondent no. 6, the elected candidate, frustrating the legitimate claim of the petitioner and also for other consequential reliefs. In C.W.J.C. No. 4509 of 2007 the petitioner seeks quashing - 2 - of the order dated 17.3.2007 passed by Munsif- IV, Saran at Chapra in Election Case No. 3/40/2006 (Lalkali Devi vs. Election Commission and ors.) by which has rejected the application filed by the writ petitioners under Order 6 Rule-16 and Order 7 Rule-11 of the Code of Civil Procedure raising objections regarding the maintainability of the election petition. The said election petition was filed by respondent no. 7 stating that on a counting of votes, the election petitioner was declared elected by defeating the opposite party no. 5- petitioner. This news was also published by the media. The matter was thereafter manipulated by the Returning Officer in order to help the petitioner and a lathi charge was ordered by him in the course of which the election petitioner and her counting agent were chased out of the compound and thereafter when they found the petitioner and her husband inside the compound, they made further protest upon which they were mis-behaved with and badly assaulted. Then without any actual recounting in the presence of the husband of the election petitioner who is also her election agent, the present petitioner has been declared elected. The complaint made by the election petitioner to the election authorities was not entertained and her application for recounting was refused. After appearing in the election case, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 6 Rule-16 and Order 7 Rule- 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to strike out the vexatious and scandalous pleadings of the election petition and thereafter to reject the election - 3 - petition under Order 7 Rule-11. The same has been rejected by the Court below by the impugned order dated 17.3.2007. Before this Court learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to argue the matter at length and relied upon a large number of decisions as to under what circumstances and on what grounds the Court can allow recounting of votes. The further submission of learned counsel is that no details of the votes obtained by the respondent no. 5 or the petitioner have been given and therefore the requirement of material facts to be pleaded in the election petition are not complied with and for the said reason, the same ought to have been rejected under Order 7 Rule -11 as it disclosed no cause of action. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 7 to 10 on the other hand has sought to bring to the notice of the Court Annexures- A and A/1 which are respectively the Summary of the Votes Obtained by each of the five candidates and the subsequent Details of Election Results. From the two documents it is evident that both are dated 16.6.2006 and that the election petitioner, respondent no. 7 had obtained 895 votes whereas the petitioner had obtained 887 votes during the earlier counting which supports the claim of the election petitioner that she was declared elected earlier. The votes counted were 2725 at the first counting; subsequently in Annexure A/1, the Details of Results of Election, the number of valid votes was reduced to 2585; while the votes of the other three candidates remained exactly the same that of the petitioner got reduced to 834 and of the - 4 - respondent no. 7 was reduced even more to the extent of 807 and thus the petitioner was declared elected. In view of the aforesaid materials which are official documents, it is evident that the election petitioner has not filed frivolous and vexious election petition on the basis of scandalous statement as alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner and the conclusion drawn by the Court below that the statement made in Paras 8 to 15 of the election petition contain the bundle of facts that constitute the cause of action of the election petition appears to be correct. The same is also borne out by the aforesaid Annexures- A and A/1. This Court thus does not find any illegality in the detailed order dated 17.3.2007 passed in election case which has been impugned in the present writ petition. C.W.J.C. No. 4509 of 2007 is accordingly dismissed. The Court below is directed to proceed expeditiously in the matter and ensure that the trial is concluded within a period of four months from today. C.W.J.C. No. 7935 of 2008 is accordingly disposed of. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)