IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12653 of 2007 SMT.RANJANA DEVI @ RANJAN JHA @ RANJAN DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.5257 of 2008 MANJU PRABHA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 3.9.2008 Both the writ applications arise out of the same election petition, the first having been filed by the elected candidate and the second by the election petitioner and they are accordingly being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12653 of 2007 being the elected candidate is aggrieved by the order dated 23.8.2007 passed in E.P. No. 29/2006 by which the Munsif, Saharsa has allowed the prayer for recall of Presiding officer of Booth No. 117 as a witness giving liberty to the opposite party no. 1- petitioner to cross-examine him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recall of the said witness is wholly unjustified and the same has been done for filling up the lacunae in the case of the election petitioner. It is pointed out that earlier a similar ex-parte order has been passed against the petitioner but the same was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 6689 of 2007. By order dated 25.7.2007 this Court has directed the Court below to pass a fresh order on the said petition for recall after hearing both the sides. - 2 - However, the same order has again been passed which according to learned counsel for the petitioner amounts to disobedience and therefore contempt of the order of this Court. Learned counsel for respondent no. 7, election petitioner on the other hand states that the writ petition has been filed for the sole purpose of delaying the disposal of the election petition and the same is thus malafide action on the part of the petitioner who is the elected candidate. It is submitted that it is for the Presiding Officer to decide such matter and he has assigned cogent reasons in support of his order which does not require any interference by this Court. In the second writ petition, the petitioner being the election petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.2.2008 passed in the said Election Petition No. 29/2006 by the Munsif, Saharsa by which he has recalled the petitioner for cross- examination on the recall petition of respondent no. 7, the elected candidate for her cross-examination the third time. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire action of the respondent no. 7 in this case, being the elected candidate, is to somehow delay the matter and harass the election petitioner. Since two opportunities for cross- examination had earlier been given to her, there is no occasion for again recalling this petitioner for cross-examination. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 supports the order stating that the same is reasonable one and in the - 3 - furtherance of justice. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with either of the impugned orders dated 23.8.2007 or 26.2.2008 passed in the said election petition. It is evident that when such applications are filed during the trial of the election petition, it is for the election tribunal to consider the matter from various angles and pass an order. Learned counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 12653 of 2007 was unable to show how the said order could have adverse consequence upon her. It is evident that the said witness is a key witness as stated in the impugned order and thus his recall by the Court below cannot be considered to be perverse. So far as the order dated 26.2.2008 is concerned this Court finds that twice the elected candidate had been given the opportunity to cross-examine the election petitioner on 4.1.2008 and 5.1.2008 but the opportunity was not availed by the elected candidate. Considering the same the learned Munsif has allowed the petition with an undertaking from the lawyer of the elected candidate that he would not cross-examine the witness for more than 15 minutes. In view of the same, the said order does not appear to be unreasonable and it is expected that the Court below will keep the learned counsel for the elected candidate in check while cross-examining the election petitioner, as undertaken by him. - 4 - Both the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. The Court below should proceed expeditiously in the matter so that it is finally disposed of within a period of six months from today preventing any unnecessary attempts of delay by the elected candidate in the matter. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)