JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no. 6, learned counsel for the State and also learned counsel for the State Election Commission. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 5,12.2007 passed in Election Case No. 2/06 by Munsif, 2nd, Madhubani, by which the application dated 21.11.2007 filed on behalf of the petitioner to recall the order dated 12.11.2007 by which the evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed, has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the Mukhiya wasengaged in flood relief work and for other reason could not produce the witnesses on the last date and, thus, the evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed by the learned Tribunal which is harsh on the part of it. The petitioner, therefore, ought to be granted one more indulgence in the matter. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6, on the other hand, submits that on four earlier occasions, i.e., on 25.5.2007, 1.8.2007, 14.9.2007 and 12.11.2007 also the evidence of the petitioner was closed by the learned Tribunal but on every time on the basis of assurances given by the petitioner the orders had been recalled and he had been granted repeated opportunity to lead his evidence. It is submitted that a long list of 23 witnesses has been submitted by the petitioner but only three could be examined and the petitioner somehow has acted so as to delay the decision of the election case until he completes five years. It is submitted that on every occasion the petitioner has been filing time petition seeking long dates as part of his dilatory tactics. 5. On a consideration of the aforesaid submissions and the impugned order dated 5.12.2007, this Court finds that the prayer made by the petitioner was not bona fide, being a winning candidate he has been somehow or other trying to delay the disposal of the election case. In the said circumstances, the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the petition of the petitioner. 6. In the above facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. This Court notices that even in the present matter while notices were issued by the Court to the election petitioner-respondent no. In the said circumstances, the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the petition of the petitioner. 6. In the above facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. This Court notices that even in the present matter while notices were issued by the Court to the election petitioner-respondent no. 2 in the present writ petition, no stay had been granted and yet the court below has chosen not to proceed in the matter. This Court is surprised at the inaction of the learned Tribunal when this Court had not passed an order of stay in not proceeding with the election petition. It is expected that the learned Munsif will proceed in the matter on a day-to-day basis and will dispose of the election case within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before it.