IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5658 of 2009 ASHA UPADHAYA,wife of Sri Ajay Upadhaya, resident of village- Mangraon, P.O. Mangraon, P.S. Kachhwa Nasariganj, District- Rohtas… Petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna through the State Election Commission. 2. The District Magistrate-cum- District Election Officer ( Panchayat), District-Rohtas. 3.The Returning Officer (Panchayat)-cum- Block Development Officer, Nasariganj Block, District- Rohtas. 4.Prabhawati Devi, wife of Sri Bipin Bihari Upadhaya, resident of village- Mangraon, P.O.Mangraon, P.S. Kachhwa Nasariganj, District- Rohtas. 5.Pawati Devi, wife of Ayodhya Mahto, resident of village Mangraon, P.O. Mangraon, P.S. Kachhwa Nasariganj, District- Rohtas. 6.Rita Devi, wife of Upendra Yadav, resident of village- Mangraon Tola- Nuaon, P.O. Mangraon, P.S. Kachhwa Nasariganj, District- Rohtas… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. S.B.K. Manglam,Advocate For Respondent No.4:Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey,Advocate For State Election Commission: Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh,Advocate --- 2. 4.5.2009 As prayed for, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make corrections in sub- paragraph No.(1) of paragraph No.1 of the relief portion in the writ petition so as to bring it in conformity with the order passed by the Tribunal. Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.4. Let the same be kept on the record. This is at least the third attempt by the petitioner to come to this Court against the interlocutory orders passed by the learned Tribunal in Election Petition No. 2 of 2006. Recently by order dated 19.2.2009 passed in three writ petitions, one filed by the present respondent No.4 and the two others being C.W.J.C. Nos.13428 and 14101 of 2008 by the petitioner, this Court had disposed of the matter with a direction to the learned Munsif to proceed in the matter on a day- 2 today- basis and dispose of the election petition No. 2 of 2006 within a period of two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of that order. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal has passed an order dated 9.4.2009, by which he has directed for inspection and recount of votes. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner, who is the winning candidate, has again approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various pleas that this Court and the Supreme Court have interfered with such orders of recount of votes. So far as the present matter is concerned, this Court is also conscious about the conduct of the petitioner, who repeatedly challenged each and every order, that is being passed by the Election Tribunal so as to somehow delay the final disposal of the election petition until the period of five years, for which the petitioner has been elected, is over. In the said circumstances and particularly considering the earlier direction of this Court to dispose of the election petition within two months, this Court does not consider it appropriate that any interference is called for in such matter so as to delay the final disposal of the election petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ application is dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)