- (1.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the records.
(2.) Prima facie, we are not satisfied that there is any justification or any extraordinary circumstance warranting our interference with the impugned order of the High Court of Calcutta on this day and at this hour when the counting process admittedly is under way. It may also be noted that the Election Commission though admittedly has come to know of the Order of the High Court dated 30/8/1993 on the evening of 1/9/1993, has not chosen to challenge that order which restricted the period of closure of the liquor shop to a shorter period beginning from 10. 00 PM on 1/9/1993 to 2. 00 P. M. on 3/9/1993 which period includes the day of polling. We have not been supplied with the copy of the order dated 30/8/1993 and, therefore, it is not known whether that order pertains to the shop of the writ petitioner therein alone or to all the shops in that constituency. At this stage, the learned counsel states that the petitioner herein is not a party to the writ petition.
(3.) Under these circumstances, we do not see any force in the submission made by the learned counsel praying for an interim stay of the operation of the impugned order dated 4/9/1993. Hence the prayer is dismissed.;