IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.358 of 2009 Shambhu Mukhiya, son of Late Lalan Mukhiya, Resident of village- Narharwar, Post Office- MainaGram, Police Station- Mahisi, Dist.- Saharsa …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat) Saharsa, District- Saharsa. 2. The District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat) Saharsa, District- Saharsa. 3. The Block Development Officer-cum- Returning Officer, Mahisi, Police station- Mahisi, District- Saharsa. 4. The Assistant Returning Officer, Mahisi, Police Station-Mahisi, District- Saharsa. 5. The State Election Commission through its Secretary, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna. 6. The Secretary, State Election Commission, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna. 7. Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of Ganga Singh, resident of village- Baletha, Police Station- Mahisi, District- Saharsa 8. Bhola Mukhiya son of Late Jhingur Mukhiya. 9. Indal Mukhiya son of Kishundeo Mukhiya. 10. Rajesh Rai son of Baleshwar Rai. Respondent nos. 8 to 10 are resident of village-Naharwar, Police Station- Mahisi, District- Saharsa 11. Arjun Chaudhary son of Prithvi Chaudahry. 12. Anjani Kumar Singh son of Naresh Prasad Singh. 13. Shailendra Kumar Singh son of Sadanand Singh. 14. Prabha Devi wife of Late Madan Mohan Singh. 15. Shiv Nandan Prasad Singh son of Late Triveni Singh 16. Sanjiv Singh son of Ramji Singh Respondent nos. 11 to 16 are resident of village Maina, Police Station- Mahisi, District- Saharsa. 17. Vijay Yadav son of Gorakh Yadav resident of village-Bareta, Police Station- Mahisi, District – Saharsa 18. Fulvendra Kumar Singh son of Late Jai Narayan Singh, resident of village Badhaur, Police Station- Mahisi, District- Saharsa. ….. Defendants/ Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh No.4, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, SC 13 with Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, A.C. to SC 13. 2/ 18.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2008 2 passed in Election Petition No. 36 of 2006 by Munsif, Saharsa, by which the petition of the petitioner filed under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure for calling the Form Nos.14 and 17 and ballot papers of Naharwar Gram Panchayat Election Constituency-19 has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to para 18 of the election petition in which amongst the reliefs claimed for adjudicating the election’s validity, the petitioner prayed for calling for Form nos.6,9,12,16,17,20 Part I and II and Form no.21 and the relevant correspondences and the enquiry report. It is submitted that earlier also before the Election Tribunal similar application was filed but the same was rejected stating that the documents may be called if it is felt necessary at a later stage. After the evidence of the petitioner had closed, again similar application was filed which was rejected on 14.8.2007. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he applied for the said documents under the Right to Information Act but the same was rejected by the Block Development Officer, Mahisi, stating that those documents would be sent only after obtaining the orders of the court. On a consideration of the impugned order, it is evident that the court has taken into consideration the fact that no details are contained in the pleadings of the facts which necessitated the calling of Form No. 14 and 17. As a matter of fact, it has been pointed out in the impugned order that even the particular booths from which Form No.14 and Form No.17 are demanded have not been mentioned anywhere. On a consideration of the impugned order, this court does not 3 find any illegality committed by the court below as the court is not expected to make a roving enquiry while hearing the election petition and call for each and every documents on the wishes of the election petitioner unless the basis for the same is laid down in the pleadings of the parties. The writ petition is, accordingly, rejected. JA/- (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)