Allahabad High Court
Mehmood Pracha vs Election Commission Of India And 2 ... on 10 September, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?AFR Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:147286-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27976 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mehmood Pracha Respondent :- Election Commission Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Omar Zamin Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jitendra Ojha Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard Sri Mehmood Pracha, petitioner appearing in person through Video Conferencing and Sri Jitendra Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1.
2. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the writ petitioner has approached the Court with the following prayers:
"A. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to directing the Respondents ensure that there is some method for ensuring the authentication, integrity, security, verifiability, of the videography pertaining to the electoral process, recorded and conducted in accordance with the applicable guidelines, handbooks, manuals, and instructions, is supplied to the Petitioner.
B. Pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
C. To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."
3. It is to be noted that the writ petitioner earlier had approached the Delhi High Court with regard to the election of 7-Rampur Loksabha Constituency, Uttar Pradesh with regard to safeguarding and protection of all videography and CCTV coverage as noticed in the order dated May 16, 2024 passed by the Delhi High Court.
4. The prayer-A in that writ petition was as follows:
"a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Election Commission of India to ensure the safeguarding and protection of all the videography and CCTV coverage regarding elections in 7- Rampur Lok Sabha constituency, Uttar Pradesh, including such footage recorded as per clauses 1.3.2., 1.3.4, 2.6, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13, 6.1, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 8.2, 8.4.8, 9.5 of the Manual on Electronic Voting Machine (Edition 8 August 2023), for 45 days from the date of the election of the returned candidate;"
5. The Court after considering the submission of the petitioner passed the following order:
"3. In view of the aforesaid affidavit filed by the respondent/ECI, the petitioner confines himself to seeking that the aforementioned procedure(s)/ protocol(s) for preserving the videography/CCTV footage as per the Manual on Electronic Voting Machine (Edition 8) August 2023 be followed in respect of the 7 Rampur Lok Sabha Constituency in UP as well.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose the aforesaid submission of the petitioner. He submits that in any event, the respondent/ ECI is bound to follow the aforesaid protocol in respect of the electoral process in every Lok Sabha constituency. The above statement is taken on record.
5. In view thereof, no further relief is pressed for by the petitioner.
6. The present petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms."
6. The writ petitioner once again filed another writ petition bearing W.P. (C) 8710/2024 before the Delhi High Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for a direction to the respondent/Election Commission of India to supply them with the entire videography and CCTV footage pertaining to the conduct of elections at 7-Rampur Lok Sabha Constituency, State of Uttar Pradesh.
7. The Court vide order dated July 16, 2024 passed the following order:
"1. It is seen that this Court on 26.06.2024 has passed certain directions:-
?6. At the outset, the petitioner acknowledges that he has been supplied certain data in a hard disk at the behest of the respondent after instituting the present petition.
7. However, it is pointed out that in the covering letter dated 22.06.2024 issued by the Election Officer, by which the hard disk has been supplied after filing of the present petition, there are no details provided as to the number of nature and details of the data viz., the CCTV footages/videos, time duration, and in fact as to the contents of the hard disk.
8. It is further pointed out that hard disk is not encrypted protected with any hash values besides the fact that there is no indication that the data has been supplied to the petitioner by the respondent pursuant to his request. In other words, the covering letter lacks relevant particulars as to its content, source and authenticity?
2. The petitioner appears in person and submits that as of now his prayer stands satisfied.
3. He, therefore, does not press the instant petition.
4. He seeks to withdraw the petition with liberty to take necessary steps with respect to grievance, if any. Reserving all rights and contentions to be raised in accordance with law, the petition stands disposed of as withdrawn."
8. From the aforesaid orders passed, it appears that orders were passed to the satisfaction of the petitioner and he had withdrawn the writ petition bearing W.P. (C) 8710/2024 filed before the Delhi High Court. Surprisingly, the writ petitioner has now chosen to file a third writ petition before this High Court seeking authentication, integrity, security, verifiability of the videography pertaining to the electoral process.
9. This Court is unable to understand as to why this writ petition is now being filed in the State of Uttar Pradesh before the Allahabad High Court when the petitioner has chosen to file the first two writ petitions with regard to the same subject matter (elections of 7-Rampur Loksabha Constituency in U.P. for the year 2024) before the Delhi High Court.
10. This Court is unable to understand this shift being made by the petitioner when the petitioner had gone on record before the Delhi High Court stating that his prayer stands satisfied.
11. The petitioner cannot jump or shift mid way and choose the forum he prefers. He could have approached the Delhi High Court once again as the cause of action remains the same and appears to be only incidental to the earlier prayers granted by the Delhi High Court.
12. Precious time of this Court has been wasted in relation to this matter as the petitioner insisted on having this matter heard before this Court without taking into consideration the fact that he has filed two similar writ petitions in the Delhi High Court in relation to the same subject matter.
13. Another aspect is required to be noted by us as the same relates to decorum to be maintained before the High Court. When this matter was called on Mr. Omar Zamin, Advocate appeared in Court and submitted that his Senior who is on virtual mode shall argue the matter. Mr. Mehmood Pracha appeared wearing his coat and band and argued the matter without informing the Court that he is appearing in person. It was only after the present order was dictated wherein we had proposed to impose costs on the petitioner that Mr. Omar Zamin pointed out to this Court that Mr. Mehmood Pracha was appearing in person. We were taken aback as Mr. Pracha had not removed his band before arguing the matter before us. This behaviour is not expected of a Senior member of the Bar who is expected to be aware of the basic etiquette to be followed while addressing the Bench in person. Mr. Pracha is directed to be cautious in the future and ensure that he maintains the decorum and dignity of the Court. Another aspect to be noted is that the petitioner had filed this writ petition through an Advocate (Mr. Omar Zamin). Having done so he could not have appeared in person without removing his Advocate or having taken leave of the Court. As is clear from the facts, none of the above was done and accordingly the methodology followed by the petitioner was not only incorrect but also mischievous and a breach of protocol.
14. In light of the fact that this writ petition has been wrongly filed and has resulted in loss of precious time of this Court coupled with the inappropriate methodology adopted by the petitioner appearing in person, this writ petition is dismissed with cost payable for the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
15. This cost shall be paid to the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within a period of 30 days from the date.
16. In the event the cost is not paid, Registrar General is directed to take necessary action for recovery of the same in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 10.9.2024 A. Mandhani (Manjive Shukla, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)