IMPORTANT POINT
Application u/r 93(1)(dd) cannot be allowed as a matter of course.

JUDGMENT

B. Sudershan Reddy, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the interlocutory order dated 15.9.2008 passed in Election Petition No.1 of 2006 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Election Tribunal) wherein the High Court allowed the application filed by the respondent under Rule 93 (1) (dd) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). The High Court vide the impugned order permitted the parties to inspect registers 17A; prepared under the said Rule.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal may have to be noticed before we proceed to consider the validity and correctness of the impugned order. The first respondent herein filed Election Petition No.1 of 2006 challenging the election of the appellant herein on various grounds. The case of the first respondent/petitioner is that he was defeated in the elections held in the month of October-November, 2005 to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from 172, Lakhisarai Assembly Constituency by a narrow margin of 82 votes only on account of several irregularities and illegalities alleged to have been committed by the appellant and his election agent together with his workers and supporters. The precise allegation, so far as we are concerned in the present appeal, relates to enrollment of voters in more than one place in the Assembly Constituency. It is alleged that the family members of the appellant are enrolled as voters from three places in the constituency and the appellant himself is enrolled as a voter in more than one place.

4. It is alleged that the election of the appellant may have to be declared void “on the solitary ground that there are large number of voters roughly about 600 were enrolled as voters from more than one place and majority of such voters have voted twice in favour of respondent no. 1 In this regard, it is curious to indicate that there are 250 persons of family of respondent no. 1 including the gotias (agantes) and co-villagers who were supporters of respondent no. 1 have voted twice from both the places in favour of respondent no. 1. Thus, 250 persons who are family members as well as agents and co-villagers and the supporters of respondent no. 1 and enrolled in more than two places in voter list in the same constituency and they have cast votes at both the places and as such 500 void votes have been counted in favour of respondent no. 1 and if such void votes are deleted by simple arithmetical calculations, respondent no. 1 has secured less number of votes than the petitioner and therefore on this ground alone the election of respondent no. 1 is not only fit to be set aside but on the other hand the election petitioner is entitled to declare election in place of respondent no. 1 by securing the majority votes than the respondent no. 1.” The details of enrollment of some such voters stated to have been enrolled in more than one place in the said constituency are mentioned in annexure 4 to the election petition.

5. The appellant herein filed a detailed written statement inter alia denying the averments made and allegations levelled in the election petition.

6. In order to prove his case the respondent no. 1 herein adduced evidence on his behalf and the matter is coming up for the evidence of the appellant/respondent. It is at this stage the first respondent herein filed an application under Rule 93 (1) (dd) of the Rules seeking inspection of the packets containing registers of voters in Form 17A; in the said application it is stated that inspection of the registers of voters in Form 17A is required for the purposes of substantiating the allegations of double voting by the relations and supporters of the appellant.

7. The appellant herein in his objection resisting the prayer for inspection of the registers inter alia submitted that inspection of the said documents if permitted at this stage may amount to making a roving enquiry in order to fish out the materials. Such inspection, if any, can be permitt