BHOLA NATH SEN Vs. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : The petitioner, who contested a parliamentary election with out success, has filed this petition for a Writ to direct the Respondents "to supply the report submitted by the Observer appointed by the Election Commission in respect of "the said parliamentary election. The election in question was held on 24th November, 1989 and this petition has been filed on 8th January, 1990, when admittedly the period prescribed for filing an election petition challenging the election in question has already expired, the period prescribed being forty-five days from the date of election of the returned candidate.

(2.) The petitioner has not, as asserted by him repeatedly in the petition and also by his learned Counsel during the hearing, prayed for setting aside of the election not for any relief in respect of the result declared. He could not obviously do so with Article 329 of the Constitution starting at the face prohibiting my challenge to such election except by an Election Petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

(3.) But the petition and the annexures thereto contain gravest possible allegations against the election in question and if those, or even some of them, are true, the election was preposterously unfair, with mass-scale rigging, booth-capturing and a reign of terror being unleashed by the rowdies. Hoodlums and hooligans at the instance of the members of the ruling party whose candidate was even eventually returned. After throwing such serious challenges against the fairness of the election throughout the petition, ant asserting the allegations to be true to has knowledge in the affidavit in support of the petition,. it, is really default to appreciate as to why the 'petitioner, with his undisputed background of a political and public leader and a reported lawyer, did not take any step to have the election set aside in accordance with law. As would appear from the petition itself, it is only after the petitioner came to know from some News Papers that the report of the Observer appointed by the Election Commission in respect of the concerned Parliamentary Constituency was adverse, that he is straining his every nerve to get a copy of the report. But why?