Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The writ petition has been filed on 26.06.2015 and it is posted today for admission. Today, the petitioner has filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.1 of 2015 seeking to direct the respondents to hold re-polling for all 230 booths in R.K.Nagar Assembly Constituency or direct to hold re-poll, particularly, in Booth Nos.156, 157, 160, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178 and 179 where the candidates were attacked.

7. Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for M/s.G.R.Associates, who accepts notice for the respondents 1 to 3, has no serious objection for taking up the miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.1 of 2015 for hearing along with writ petition.

11. In so far as the prayer sought for by the petitioner in M.P.No.1 of 2015, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, no representation making such kind of allegations or requesting for re-polling, has been received by any of the respondents and therefore, he is unable to say anything on the merits of the above said miscellaneous petition.

12. This court has considered submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the rivals submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the records carefully.

17. In so far as the prayer made by the petitioner in the miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.1 of 2015 is concerned wherein he has wanted re-polling in respect of all booths or re-polling in some of the booths, admittedly, no representation has been submitted by the petitioner to the respondents 1 to 3 making such a request. However, the fact remains that some action has been taken on the representations of the petitioner dated 22.06.2015 and 24.06.2015 and he was also informed of the same.

18. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that the irregularities committed during polling, which took place on 27.06.2015, as enlightened by the petitioner would show that the bye election was not conducted in a free and fair manner and therefore in order secure the ends of justice, there may be a direction issued to the respondent for re-polling in all booths or at least in some of the booths as sought for in the miscellaneous petition.

19. In the considered opinion of this court, the prayer sought for by the petitioner in M.P.No.1 of 2015 for ad-interim direction travels beyond the scope of the main writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner did not submit any representation to the respondents bringing to their knowledge about the alleged illegalities or irregularities that took place at the time of polling.