Judgment

Jasti Chelameswar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The General Election to Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly took place in 2013. The Appellant herein is one of the contesting candidates for 72-Kawardha Legislative Assembly Constituency.

3. Polling took place on 19.11.2013. The result was declared on 8.12.2013. First Respondent was declared elected. The Appellant secured the second highest number of votes in the said election. On 20.1.2014, the Appellant filed Election Petition No. 4 of 2014 challenging the election of the first Respondent on various grounds including the commission of certain corrupt practices. On 29.1.2014, the High Court issued summons to the Respondents.

4. It appears that matter was listed on 25.3.2014. It is not very clear from the records whether all the Respondents were served or not. But from copy of the order dated 25.3.2014, it appears that only Respondent Nos. 1, 5, 9 and 10 were represented by counsel and other Respondents were not represented. The High Court recorded an order as follows:

There is an oral prayer made for extension of time for filing written statement but there is no application is writing in that regard.

In the interest of justice, three days time is granted to learned Counsel for the Respondent to file application if any.

5. On 26.3.2014, the first Respondent herein filed two applications-one invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "Code of Civil Procedure") and another raising certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the election petition.

6. On 2.4.2014, two more interlocutory applications came to be filed, one each at the instance of Respondent No. 1 and 10 seeking extension of time for filing the written statement. The said applications were allowed and the High Court granted another 30 days' time for filing the written statement.

7. Thereafter the matter underwent number of adjournments, the details of which may not be necessary for the purpose of this order. Eventually, arguments on Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure were heard in part on 27.6.2014. After two more adjournments, on 1.7.2014 arguments on the said applications were concluded and the matter was fixed for orders on 21.7.2014. However, the order was not pronounced and the matter was again adjourned for 30.7.2014 on which date the interlocutory applications filed by the Respondents were dismissed.

8. On 14.8.2014, appearance was entered on behalf of Respondent No. 8 by one Shri Ashish Shrivastav, who is none other than the brother of Justice Manindra M. Srivastava who was the Judge hearing the Election Petition. Justice Manindra Srivastava promptly recused from the election petition and in our opinion rightly. On such recusal, the election petition was allotted to another learned Judge.

9. In the meanwhile on 26.8.2014, a complaint regarding the appearance by the above-mentioned Ashish Srivastav was made to the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The election petition was further adjourned.

10. It appears that Respondent No. 8 filed another application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. But, the counsel for Respondent No. 8, Shri Ashish Srivastava filed an application seeking permission to withdraw his Vakalatnama. The said application was allowed by the High Court. On 28.11.2014, a Vakalatnama came to be filed by Shri B.P. Gupta on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 though there is another counsel on record already. It appears that at the instance of Shri B.P. Gupta, the matter was once again adjourned ostensibly to enable Shri B.P. Gupta to get ready with the case. On 4.12.2014, the application filed by the Respondent No. 8 under Order VII Rule 11 came to be dismissed.

11. Broadly, it is in the above-mentioned background the instant SLP came to be filed complaining that notwithstanding the mandate of Section 86, Sub-section (7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the High Court has not disposed of the election petition so far. Section 86, Sub-section (7) rea