Shantiram Mahato vs Baneswar Mahato And Ors.

Mr. Dipayan Choudhury, learned advocate representing concerned Election Authority proposes for serving a copy of the instant election petition upon

the concerned Election Authority simply for the purpose of knowing the issue involved therein and further assures this Court that the concerned

Election Authority in compliance of the order dated 18th June, 2021 will preserve all necessary documents, papers and the devices connected with the

instant election under challenge until further order, for effective adjudication of the instant election petition.

Learned advocate representing the petitioner raises objection against such service submitting that the direction sought for may be considered after

securing presence of all the respondents involved in this case. Though the direction sought for by learned advocate for the concerned Election

Authority appears to be innocuous in nature, but the same may be examined after securing presence of the respondents involved in this case.

From the report of the Registrar, Original Side dated 14th July, 2021, it appears that the copy of the order dated 18th June, 2021 and the copy of the

election petition along with notice have been dispatched for service upon the concerned respondents on 29th June, 2021 and from the track report

downloaded from the official website of postal department, it appears that such notice of election petition was dispatched for service upon the

concerned respondents on 30th June, 2021. It further appears from the track report downloaded from the website of postal department, lastly received

on 14th July, 2021, that there is no reflection about the delivery of the service upon the concerned respondents involved in this case.

From another report of Registrar, Original Side dated 13th July, 2021 enclosing a petition of respondent no. 4 (Dipak Kumar), it appears that

respondent no. 4 has expressed his inability to appear in the case due to his illness and also disclosed his disinclination to appoint a suitable learned

advocate to represent him for this purpose. The respondent no. 4 also has stated therein that he would be bound by the decision to be delivered in this

case.

Admittedly, none appears today for any of the respondents involved in this case responding to the notice issued for the purpose.

Since 30 days have not yet completed taking into the account of date of dispatch of service of notice, the Court is of the view that another opportunity

should be given to ensure appearance of the respondents.

The matter be listed accordingly on 27th July, 2021.

One Dipak Kumar son of Bhandu Kumar of village Tentlow, P.S. Balarampur, District â€" Purulia has submitted this petition expressing his

disinclination to participate in this election petition stating the reasons therein, but the name of the father of Dipak Kumar has neither been mentioned

in the cause title of the election petition, nor in the annexure P7 page 122 (Form 7A) of the instant election petition.

In all fairness of this exercise, let a notice only afresh be served upon respondent no. 4 through the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station

intimating the next date fixed for ensuing appearance of respondents, so that dispute of identity of respondent no. 4, if there be any, may be resolved

for all relevant purposes. A report from Officer-in-Charge of concerned Police Station should reach before the next date fixed. The petitioner to take

steps accordingly.

The department to furnish a report regarding service of the notice upon respondents before the matter is next listed.

Let certified copy of this order be made available to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.