IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15022 of 2009 NARESH MOHAN THAKUR S/O LATE KRISHNA MOHAN THAKUR R/O VILL & P.O. PARRI BLOCK, BIRAUL, DISTT- DARBHANGA. ………. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ACHYUTNAND THAKUR S/O RATENDU THAKUR @ SWETENDU THAKUR R/O VILL &P.O PARRI, BLOCK, BIRAUL, DISTT- DARBHANGA 3. ANZAR ALAM S/O MD. MUNSIF KHAN R/O VILL DHAKJARI, P.O. MAHWA, P.S. &BLOCK BIRAUL, DISTT- DARBHANGA 4. JAGANNATH RAI S/O LATE DEO NARAYAN RAI R/OVILL DHAKJARI, P.O. MAHWA, P.S. &BLOCK BIRAUL, DISTT- DARBHANGA 5. TARNI JHA S/O MAHENDRA JHA R/O VILL & P.O. PARRI BLOCK, BIRAUL, DISTT- DARBHANGA 6. TARAKANT THAKUR S/O RAMUDIST THAKUR R/O VILL &P.O PARRI, BLOCK, BIRAUL, DISTT- DARBHANGA 7. RAM BALAK THAKUR S/O LATE JANARDAN THAKUR R/O VILL&P.O. PARRI, BLOCK BIRAUL, DISTT- DARBHANGA 8. KARI MAHTO S/O NOT KNOWN ANCHALADHIKARI- CUM - RETURNING OFFICER, BIRAUL ANCHAL, DISTT- DARBHANGA 9. ELECTION COMMISSIONER, CHIEF ELECTION OFFICE BIHAR, PATNA ………… RESPONDENTS ----------- 2. 25/01/2010 Petitioner, an elected Sarpanch, has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 3.8.209 passed in Election Petition No.3 of 2006 by learned Munsif, Biraul at Benipur, by which he has called for election related materials, particularly, Presiding Officers diary, counting chart, used and unused ballots, valid and invalid votes, for keeping them in safe custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Election Tribunal can consider - 2 - the records and ballot papers only after evidence is closed and not before that. In support of this submission, he has relied on a few judgments of this Court, in the cases of Hoshila Tiwary Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.: 2004(3) PLJR 513; Upendra Prasad Mandal Vs. The Union of India & Ors. : 2006(1) PLJR 484; Raj Kumar Vs. Bihar State Election Commissioner & Ors. : 2005(4) PLJR 268 and Jai Ram Singh Vs. The State Election Commissioenr & Ors : 2003(1) PLJR 775. He contends that considering the records and particularly ballot papers before evidence may cause prejudice to the parties and may affect the evidence to be led by them. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is right to that extent. However, opening of sealed covers and consideration of records is entirely different thing than keeping the records and materials in sealed cover and in safe custody. From the impugned order it appears that the Election Tribunal has called for the materials and records for keeping them in safe custody. It is obvious that the same have to be examined and considered only after evidence of the parties is closed. Since intention of learned Tribunal - 3 - in calling for the materials of the election is clear from the order itself, this Court does not find any error in the order. Therefore, this writ application is dismissed. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh,J.)