Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) The aforesaid writ petition is made challenging the validity of the election process to the extent of recounting of valid votes as contained in the Ballot Box of the concerned Gram Panchayet within a particular period from the date of the communication of the order and not to given effect or further effect of the result as declared in favour of the private respondent as winning candidate in respect of the Constituency. Immediately after the said matter four other writ petitions were appearing in the day's list i.e. on 11th June, 2003. As because learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner therein contended that the matters are principally similarly placed excepting very few factual differences the matters can be analogously heard along with the matter in which this Court is going to deliver the judgment.
(2.) During the interregnum period further writ petition was moved being W.P. No. 9137(W) of 2003 under which similar challenge has been thrown. One important aspect is to be recorded hereunder that by challenging the election, the petitioner in W.P No. 9137(W) of 2003 has already filed an election petition before the appropriate Civil Court.
(3.) Mr. Asok De, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. No. 8384(W)/2003 has made his extensive argument on behalf the petitioner when Mr. Asis Chakraborty Learned Junior to Sardar Amjad Ali, Learned Senior Counsel of this Court appearing in the matter being W.P. No. 8473(W)-8476(W) of 2003 supported the contentions of Mr. De. However, since the W.P. No. 9137(W) of 2003 was initially placed on the different date Mr. Asish Sanyal Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also made an extensive argument separately. All of them are sailing in the same boat. On the other hand, Mr. L. C. Bihani Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Election Commissioner, made his extensive argument in opposing the contentions of the petitioners which was adopted by the Learned Counsels appearing for the different respondents including State. Therefore, they are also sailing in the same boat. Hence, both sets of arguments are taken into account to come to an appropriate conclusion by this Court.;