Surendra Yadav vs Anita Devi

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State Election Commission along with learned counsel for the State.

In view of the nature of relief sought in the present writ application notices upon private respondents are not required.

The present writ application has been filed seeking a direction upon the learned Munsif-II, Gaya for disposal of Election Petition No. 05/21-11/21within a time frame.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that he is confining his prayer only with respect to the relief as noted hereinabove.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that election for the post of Mukhiya for Gram Panchayat Raj, Bhetaura under Tankuppa Block, District Gaya was notified by the Election Commission and the date of the Election was fixed on 15.11.2021. It is further submitted that the petitioner along with other candidates filed their nomination and contested the election. It is next submitted that on the date of polling, 6047 electorates of Bhetaura Gram Panchayat exercised their right to vote for the post of Mukhiya. The voter turn out was communicated by the respondent-B.D.O, Tankuppa vide Memo No. 228, dated 15.11.2021. It is next submitted that on the date of counting, the writ petitioner secured 2212 votes while his nearest rival i.e. respondent no. 1 (Anita Devi) secured 2200 votes and, thus, she was behind the petitioner by 12 votes. It is next submitted that the Returning Officer, in collusion with respondent no. 1 while declaring the result, announced that respondent no. 1 has secured 2224 votes and the total votes cast was 6071. It is next submitted that since the petitioner lost the election as such he challenged the same by filing Election Petition No. 05/21-11/21 which is pending adjudication before the learned Munsif-II, Gaya. It is next submitted that in the election petition, notices were issued and the defendants appeared, except defendant nos. 1, 2 and 6. Accordingly, the learned Munsif-II, Gaya by order dated 28.03.2022 passed an order recording that the proceeding against them will commence ex parte. It is next submitted that thereafter defendant nos. 1 and 6 also appeared. It is further submitted that since the order dated 28.03.2022 had already recorded that the proceeding against defendant no. 2 shall proceed ex parte, as such, the learned trial Court should have expedited the matter. It is further submitted that the Election Petition is proceeding at a slow pace and by the time it will be decided the petitioner even after winning the case may lose as the fruits of the order may not come to him on account of efflux of time, thus, prays that a direction be issued upon the learned trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a time frame.

Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the State Election Commission do not object to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner but submit that the trial Courts are over burdened with such cases.

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to expedite the case and if possible to conclude the same within a time frame preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, if possible.