1. In Election Petition No. 4 of 2009 and in Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 the petitioners have, inter alia, challenged bye election dated 10.9.2009 for 102-Danta Legislative Assembly Constituency.
2. Thus, both the said Election Petitions are related and arise from the election for 102-Danta Legislative Assembly Constituency.
3. There is one more Election Petition viz. Election Petition No. 1 of 2010.
3.1 The said two Election Petitions came to be placed 1 O/EP/4/2009 ORDER before this Court, along with Election Petition No. 1 of 2010.
3.2 The said Election Petition No. 1 of 2010 is also related to and arise from the same election i.e. election for 102-Danta Legislative Assembly Constituency.
4. Thus, all three election petitions arise from and are related to the same election for same constituency.
5. The above mentioned Election Petition No. 1 of 2010 was listed for hearing on 22.3.2013 when the petitioner of the said Election Petition appeared as party-in-person.
5.1 During the hearing of the said Election Petition, the petitioner had submitted and insisted that the said Election Petition may be directed to be transferred to and may be placed before another Hon'ble Court.
5.2 Therefore, after recording the said submission and insistence of the petitioner of the said petition (i.e. Election Petition No. 1 of 2010) this Court 2 O/EP/4/2009 ORDER passed order dated 22.3.2013. The order reads thus:-
"1. In the present petition, the petitioner appears as party-in-person.
2. The petitioner has submitted that the matter may be transferred and placed before another Honourable Court.
3. In view of the said request by the petitioner who appears as party-in-person, Registry is directed to take appropriate and necessary action. Registry may request the Honourable the Chief Justice to take into consideration the request made by the petitioner - party in-person and pass appropriate order so as to place the matter before another Honourable court as desired by the petitioner."
6. At the relevant time other two Election Petitions i.e. Election Petition No. 4 of 2009 and Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 were not listed for hearing. 6.1 In this context it is appropriate to mention that when the said two Election Petitions were listed before this Court the parties to the said two election petitions made limited submissions restricted only to the preliminary objection (viz. whether written submissions filed by the respondent / returned candidate should be accepted on record and should be exhibited or not) however at that time any reference of any other applications was not made.
7. Subsequently, when entire record of the said two Election Petitions being Election Petition No. 4 of 2009 and Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 was examined, two applications being OJMCA No. 103 of 3 O/EP/4/2009 ORDER 2011 and OJMCA No. 104 of 2011 came to the notice of the Court whereby the applicant of OJMCA No. 104 of 2011 i.e. petitioner in Election Petition No. 1 of 2010 had made said two applications for being impleaded as party respondent in Election Petition No. 4 of 2009 and Election Petition No. 5 of 2009.
8. On examination of the said application, it came to the notice of the Court that the applicant of said applications is the petitioner in Election Petition No. 1 of 2010.
8.1 Therefore, this Court further examined the record of Election Petition No. 4 of 2009, Election Petition No. 5 of 2009, OJMCA No. 103 of 2011 and OJMCA No. 104 of 2011 and Election Petition No. 1 of 2010 and it came to the notice of this Court that as such all three petitions i.e. Election Petition No. 1 of 2010, Election Petition No. 4 of 2009 and Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 are related to and arise from the same election i.e. election for 102-Danta Legislative Assembly Constituency.
8.2 It was in view of the submissions and insistence by the petitioner of Election Petition No. 1 of 2010 4 O/EP/4/2009 ORDER (which has also the applicant in OJMCA No. 114 of 2011) that the Court had passed above mentioned order dated 22.3.2013 and pursuant to the said order dated 22.3.2013 in Election Petition No. 1 of 2010 the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to pass order dated 2.5.2013 whereby Election Petition No. 1 of 2010 has been assigned for hearing before another Hon'ble Court.
9. It is in light of the fact that the two Election Petitions being Election Petition No. 4 of 2009 and Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 also arise from and are related to same election that this Court is required to take into consideration the provisions under Section 86(3) of the Representation of Peoples' Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 9.1 As per the mandate under the said section, all election petitions arising from or related to the same election ought to be heard by the same Court.
10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the provision under Section 86(3) of the Act it would be necessary and appropriate that these two petitions i.e. Election 5 O/EP/4/2009 ORDER Petition No. 4 of 2009 and Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 also are required to be heard together / along with Election Petition No. 1 of 2010 which arise from and is connected with the same election and that therefore these two petitions i.e. Election Petition No. 4 of 2009 and Election Petition No. 5 of 2009 also required to be and deserve to be placed before other Hon'ble Court (i.e. before the Hon'ble Court where Election Petition No. 1 of 2010 is ordered (by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice) to be placed after the order dated 22.3.2013 by this Court). Hence, in view of the order dated 22.3.2013 and subsequent order dated 25.3.2013 by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in Election Petition No. 1 of 2010 office is directed to place these two Election Petitions No. 4 of 2009 and 5 of 2009 before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate order and directions in view of the above noted facts and in light of the provisions under Section 86(3) of the Act. The said Section 86(3) reads thus:-
"86. Trial of election petitions .--
(3) Where more election petitions than one are presented to the High Court in respect of the same election, all of them shall be referred for trial to the same Judge who may, in his discretion, try them separately or in one or more groups.