Nitin Tyagi & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Anr.

2. The impugned order disposed of the application filed by the petitioners dated 16th /17th May, 2018 for cross examination of Mr.Prashant Patel, the complainant, and for summoning of the Secretary, Delhi Legislative Assembly; concerned officer from the General Administrative Department, Government of NCT, Delhi; concerned officer from Accounts Department, Government of NCT, Delhi and concerned officer of Ministry of Law, Government of NCT of Delhi.

3. During the course of hearing before us, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, on instructions, states that they would like to bring the controversy to an end and would accept the impugned order without prejudice to the rights and contentions on interpretation and pleas on “Office of profit under the Government”.

4. He also states that if required and necessary, the petitioners would file a consolidated but one application for summoning of witness(es), which may be considered and examined by the Election Commission of India on merits and in accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel for the Election Commission of India states that the order dated 17th July, 2018 had decided the application dated 16th /17th May, 2018. It is stated that the impugned order is not the final order disposing of the Reference. Observations made in the order dated 17th July, 2018 are with reference to and for the purpose of deciding the application dated 16th /17th May, 2018.

6. On consideration, we are inclined to dispose of the present writ petitions with an observation that in case a fresh application for summoning of witness(es) is filed by the petitioners, the same would be considered and decided by the Election Commission of India in accordance with law. The application, if filed, should have full details and particulars why oral examination in respect of a specific document(s) is required. It is clarified that the Court has not expressed any opinion or view on merits on the question of “Office of Profit under the Government” or on application, which may be filed.

7. On the question of scope and ambit of remand to the Election Commission, we would like to re-produce paragraphs 110 and 113 of the decision dated 23rd March, 2018, which read as under:-

1956.

8. Learned Senior Advocate for the Election Commission of India had expressed concern and apprehension that the proceedings in the Reference are being delayed and he had even suggested that the Court may fix outer time for completion of the hearing. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners in clear and categorical terms has stated that the petitioners do not want to delay the proceedings and also seek expeditious and fair disposal. One of the reasons for the procedure followed by us and the present order disposing of the Writ Petitions on the basis of statements made, is to ensure expeditious and immediate disposal of the present petitions, so as not to delay the Reference proceedings.

9. During the course of hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioners had referred to some remarks in the order dated 17th July, 2018, passed by the Election Commission of India. We are told by the counsel for the petitioners that the counsel had made applications before the Election Commission in that regard, but the applications have been dismissed as the present writ petitions were pending. As the writ petitions are being disposed of, the applications may be considered by the Election Commission in accordance with law.

10. Recording the above and in terms of the statements made, the writ petitions are disposed of, without any order as to costs.