IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2446 of 2007 (M/S) General Manager (HR) & another. ………. Petitioner. Versus Central Foundry Forge Employees Union & others. ………… Respondents Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate with Mr. T.C. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Vashishth & Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocates for the respondent No. 1 Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. It is a very unfortunate as well as totally misconceived and frivolous petition filed by no less an Institution than a Central Government undertaking with actually, on the face of it, had no direct or indirect interest in the result of the litigation pending in the trail court. Between two warring Trade Unions, one approached the trial court by filing a civil suit to the effect that based upon the counting of votes, result in favour of the defendant Union was wrongly declared because out of 814 votes cast, 106 ballots were declared invalid. In the plaint, it was contended that whereas the plaintiff Union had secured 112 ballots, the defendant Union was elected because it had secured 115 ballots. The contention of the plaintiff Union was that 106 invalid ballots were wrongly treated as invalid. In the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff Union in the trial court, it was requested that the aforesaid 106 invalid ballots, in original, be brought in the court so that the pattern of marking the choice thereupon be discerned by the court itself to find out as to whether these ballots were in fact invalid or the voters had expressed or indicated their intention to vote in favour of one or the other Union. Based upon this application, the learned trial court passed the order directing the petitioners, who were the custodians of these ballots, to produce them in the court. It is against this order that the present writ petition under Article 227 the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners. The impugned order was totally innocuous as well as it was absolutely harmless. This order in no way prejudiced any interest of the petitioners nor did it interfere in any manner in the functioning of the petitioners at all. Whether the ballots remained in the custody of the petitioners or were produced in the court, should not have at all mattered with the petitioners. The question, which may arise therefore, is why did the petitioners choose to challenge the aforesaid order in this petition? Were the petitioners aligned with one or the other party to litigation or there was something else ulterior in nature? Even though I have posted these questions, I refrain from answering them. The fact remains that the petitioners should not have challenged this order by filing this frivolous writ petition because the status and character of the petitioners is such that they are supposed to be totally independent, impartial and uninvolved as far as the litigation in question and its result is concerned. The writ petition is dismissed with exemplary costs assessed at Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners in the Legal Aid Fund before 7th July, 2008. The petitioners are directed to comply with the impugned order also before 7th July, 2008 by producing the ballots before the trial court in a sealed cover. On receiving the sealed cover, the trial court shall also affix its seal on the cover and as and when the sealed cover is required to be opened for examination of the ballots, appropriate action shall be taken by the trial court in accordance with law. (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 30.06.2008 G