Order Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner Janta Dal (United) through its General Secretary Lalan Kumar Singh & Rajiv Ranjan Singh has prayed for a direction commanding the Election Commission of India, respondent No.2 to cancel the poll held in 21, Madhepura Parliamentary constituency on 3rd October, 1999 and to hold a fresh poll under its direct control and supervision with adequate deployment of Central para military force on all booths so that the election is free, fair and impartial. 3. In sum and substance, the grievance of the petitioner is that there has been large scale capturing of booths on 3rd October, 1999 when the constituency went to polls. This was on account of the fact that sufficient number of static force was not deputed at the various polling booths despite the assurance of the Election Commission. This gave opportunity to anti social elements to indulge in capturing of booths. Large scale stamping of ballot papers took place and at many places bona fide voters were chased away. The para military force which were deputed to guard polling booths did not actually reach the polling booths because vehicles were not provided to them, and for other reasons. It is also alleged that the local officials supported a particular candidate affirmatively in capturing booths, and negatively by not listening to the complaints made by the members of the public as well as concerned candidate. Counsel for the petitioner submits that representations were made to the Election Commission of India bringing to its notice large scale violence and mal practices committed on the day of the poll. It is also submitted that even some of the reports submitted by the officers involved in the conduct of the poll would establish the allegations made by the petitioner, and those reports are available with the Election Commission of India. 4. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner has complete faith in the Election Commission of India. His real grievance is that despite express directions of the Election Commission of India, the Election was not held in accordance with those directions and, therefore, the Election Commission of India should consider the matter and take appropriate decision. 4. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner has complete faith in the Election Commission of India. His real grievance is that despite express directions of the Election Commission of India, the Election was not held in accordance with those directions and, therefore, the Election Commission of India should consider the matter and take appropriate decision. His further grievance is that though the petitioner and others have attempted to seek an appointment with the Election Commission of India so that they may be able to place their grievance before it, it has not been possible for the Election Commission of India even to hear them. They are sanguine that with the material in their possession, they will be able to substantiate their submissions only if the Election Commission of India gives them an opportunity of hearing. 5. Counsel for the Union of India submitted that so far Union of India is concerned, adequate para military force was provided, which was sufficient to conduct the poll in a fair manner. He is, however, not in a position to state the manner in which those forces have been deployed in the constituency. Once the para military force is put at the disposal of the Election Commission of India, it is for the concerned authorities to deploy them appropriately. 6. Counsel for the Commission submitted that in a matter of this nature, this Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction to countermand the poll, nor can it investigate the question relating to booth capturing as that would amount to a corrupt practice which can be gone into in a duly constituted proceeding before the appropriate Tribunal constituted under the Representation of People Act. He however submitted that the Election Commission of India has no objection to hearing the petitioner or his representative and others who may be interested in placing material before the Election Commission of India, including the aggrieved candidate or his representative. Having regard to urgency of the matter, he submitted that the Election Commission of India is willing to hear the parties even today, but counsel for the petitioner submitted that the candidate himself is presently at Madhepura and it will not be possible for him to reach New Delhi today. Having regard to urgency of the matter, he submitted that the Election Commission of India is willing to hear the parties even today, but counsel for the petitioner submitted that the candidate himself is presently at Madhepura and it will not be possible for him to reach New Delhi today. Counsel for the Commission agreed that the parties will be heard latest by the forenoon tomorrow and thereafter the Election Commission of India will pass such order as it may consider proper and necessary. 7. In matters of this nature, the jurisdiction of this Court to issue direction of the kind prayed for in this writ petition is doubtful. However, the Election Commission of India is also vested with satutory duties and obligation and obviously it can act only if sufficient material is placed before it by the parties concerned. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will be satisfied if the Election Commission of India gives a hearing and considers the material which is available, and thereafter take an appropriate decision. Obviously this would include the material which is already in possession of the Election Commission which it may have received through its official sources, such as the reports of its Observers and other reports made by the Polling Officers, Commandants of the forces, if any etc. 8. In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Election Commission of India, respondent No.2, to hear the petitioner and others including the aggrieved candidate and/or his representative who wish to be heard in the matter and who wish to produce before the Commission such material as is in their possession to substantiate the allegations made. After hearing the persons concerned, the Election Commission of India may pass such order as it may consider necessary and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The counting of the ballots has begun today and is likely to continue till tomorrow. Since the Election Commission of India is to hear the parties by forenoon tomorrow, the result of the election shall not be declared till the matter is heard by the Election Commission of India. Thereafter the Election Commission will pass suitable orders regarding declaration of result as it may be advised. Since the Election Commission of India is to hear the parties by forenoon tomorrow, the result of the election shall not be declared till the matter is heard by the Election Commission of India. Thereafter the Election Commission will pass suitable orders regarding declaration of result as it may be advised. Nothing said in this order should be considered as expression of opinion on the merit of the case, or the allegation made in the writ petition. The Election Commission of India is free to consider all aspects of the matter and pass such order as it considers appropriate and proper in accordance with law. 10. Let a copy of this order be given to counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the Union of India and the Election Commission of India.