JUDGMENT : I.A. Nos. 5818 of 2017 & I.A. No. 2117 of 2017 I.A. No. 2117 of 2017 has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 330 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules on behalf of the petitioner stating inter alia that: A. Nomination paper of Chandra Prakash Choudhary respondent no. 1 filed in the year, 2005 along with affidavit. From: District Election Office, Hazaribagh. For 23, Ramgarh Assembly Constituency. 'B. Nomination papers of Chandra Prakash Choudhary Respondent No. 1 filed in the year 2009 along with Affidavit. From: District Election Office, Ramgarh For 23, Ramgarh Assembly Constituency. C. Nomination papers of Chandra Prakash Choudhary Respodnent No.1, filed in the year, 2014 along with Affidavit. From: District Election Office, Ramgarh. For 23, Ramgarh Assembly Constituency. D. Records of G.R. No. 76 of 2003 (i) State vs. C.P Choudhary & Others. (ii) Receipt along with fine paid by C.P. Choudhary (Index 14 Form No. 511, Receipt No. 097901 with original receipt. From: Office of the Railway Magistrate, Ranchi From record room of Ranchi. E. (i) Statement of property for the year, 2009-10 filed by C.P. Chaudhary before Hon'ble Speaker, Jharkhand Assembly, Ranchi. From:-Speaker, Jharkhand Assembly, Ranchi (ii) Statement of Property filed by C.P. Chaudhary M.L.A. (Now Minister) for the year 2013-14 filed before Hon'ble Speaker, Jharkhand Assembly. From: Speaker, Jharkhand Assembly. F. (i) Copy of the Sale Deed No. 1306 of the year 2002 (24.1.2002) from Registry Office, Hazaribagh. (ii) Sale Deed No. 870/Dated 15.3.2002 from Registry Office, Hazaribagh. (iii) Copy of sale deed, registered, in favour of Sri Chandra Prakash Chaudhary, from Tenughat Registry Office, Tenughat. G. (i) Record of Giddi P.S. Case No. 60 of 2000 from the Court of C.J.M., Hazaribagh or from record room, C. Court, Hazaribagh. (ii) Records of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 162/2001 from Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh. (iii) Records of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 104 of 2009. (iv) Records of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 283/2002. (v) Records of Giddi P.S. Case No. 16/2009. (vi) Records of Ramgah P.S. Case No. 275/2009. (vii) Records of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 284 of 2002. (viii) Case of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 244 of 2004: (ix) Case of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 150/04. (x) Case of Ramgar,h P.S. Case No. 116/04, . (xi) Case of Ramgarh P.S. CaslF No. 282/02. (vi) Records of Ramgah P.S. Case No. 275/2009. (vii) Records of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 284 of 2002. (viii) Case of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 244 of 2004: (ix) Case of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 150/04. (x) Case of Ramgar,h P.S. Case No. 116/04, . (xi) Case of Ramgarh P.S. CaslF No. 282/02. All' the above from Civil Court, Hazaribagh Or From record room, Civil Court, Hazaribagh H. (i) Sale Deed of % Vatika Apartment, Tank Road, Ranchi Sale Deed No. .. ..........dated 16.5.2005. (ii) Market Rate/Rate of Registry as given by Registry Office of Line Tank Road, Ranchi. For the year, 2005-06 2009-2011 2014-2015 Of Line Tank Road Area (iii) Sale deed in the name of Sunita Choudhary W/o Sri C.P., Choudhary from Sub-Registrar-Tenughat. I. Details of Payment along with payment, receipts, in original/or carbon copy, made by Chandra Prakash Choudhary or by his agent during the Assembly Elections of 23, Ramgarh Assembly Constituency for printing and advertisement for the year, 2013-14-15, in Hindi daily-Hindustan Ramgarh/ Hazaribagh issue. From: HMVL (Hindustan). From office situated at Kokar Industrial Area, P.O.-Kokar, Ranchi. With the Rate Chart of 2013-14, 2014-15 of Advertisement. J. Details of advertisement published in Prabhat Kharbar, Neehal.Publishing House-Prabhat Khabar. From: Prabhat Khabar Office, Industrial Area, Kokar, Ranchi And Payment, along with payment receipts/carbon copy, made for Advertisement, made for Ramgarh Assembly Constituency, held' in the year, 2013-14, 2014-15. With the rate chart of 2013-14, 2014-15, chart of advertisement. K. Details of payment made to Jagran Prakashan by C.P. Chaudhary for Advertisement in 2014 for Ramgarh Assembly Constituency. Rate of Jagran Prakashan for the year, 2013-14, 2014-15. From: Jagran Prakashan, Industrial Area, Kokar, Ranchi. L. Details of payment along with payment receipts/carbon copy of the payment made to Dainik Bhaskar by C.P. Chaudhary or by his agent for advertisement for Ramgarh Assembly for the year, 2013-14, 2014-15. From: The office of Dainik Bhaskar, Industrial Area, Kokar, Ranchi M. Details of payment, along with payment receipts/carbon copy of the, made to Vririda Media Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Kokar, Ranchi for Advertisement . for Ramgarh Assembly 2013-14 2014-15 Rate of advertisement of Dainik Jagran for the years 2013-14 & 2014-15. N. Educational Records of C.P. Chaudhary . (i) From: Rajballabh High School, Sandi, Chitarpur of 1984. Matric result along with passing certificate for the year, 1984 of B.S.E.B. + Date .of Birth Certificate. for Ramgarh Assembly 2013-14 2014-15 Rate of advertisement of Dainik Jagran for the years 2013-14 & 2014-15. N. Educational Records of C.P. Chaudhary . (i) From: Rajballabh High School, Sandi, Chitarpur of 1984. Matric result along with passing certificate for the year, 1984 of B.S.E.B. + Date .of Birth Certificate. O. (i) Income Tax Return filed by Sunita Chaudhary, W/o C.P. Choudhary, PAN No. AJH PC 6175G. For the year 2003-04 2004-05 2007-08 2008-09 2012-13 2013-14 (ii) Income tax Returns filed by C.P. Chaudhary, PAN No. AAXPC 5098B For the year 2003-04 2004-05 2007-08 2008-09 2013-14 2014-15 From: (1) Income Tax Office, Hazaribagh. (2) Income Tax Office, Ramgarh. (iii) Affidavit Records of 2014 of B.D. Gope. From: B.D. Gope, Notary, Ramgarh 2. Counter affidavit to the IA No. 2117 of 2017 has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 on 23.3.2017 stating inter alia that: 3. That at the very outset, it is submitted that the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner calling for records from different offices in relation to answering respondent is beyond the pleadings in relation to the material facts and particulars and hence, the prayer of the election petitioner to that effect made in I.A. is misconceived and fit to be rejected. 4. That it is submitted that Election Petitioner cannot insist and persist for roving and fishing enquiry, the material facts are to be pleaded to establish a cause of action and in absence of such material facts and particulars, the prayer for the records may kindly not be entertained. 5. That in reply to the statements made in paragraphs 1 A and (B) of the interlocutory application, which relates to calling of the nomination paper' of the answering respondent for the election to the Legislative Assembly held in the year, 2005 and 2009 are concerned, it. is submitted that the period of the Assembly for five years has lapsed and there had been no challenge to those elections of the answering respondent for the Assembly Election and hence, those nomination papers have no significance in relation to the instant dispute. 6. is submitted that the period of the Assembly for five years has lapsed and there had been no challenge to those elections of the answering respondent for the Assembly Election and hence, those nomination papers have no significance in relation to the instant dispute. 6. That in reply to the statements made in para 1 (C) of the interlocutory application, under reply it is submitted that the nomination paper of the answering respondent have been submitted in prescribed format along with affidavit and requisite documents and the same has been put to public notice and thereafter put to scrutiny but no objections in relation to validity of the nomination or non-qualification or non-furnishment of any information by the answering respondent has been either raised or filed at the relevant stage and after the election of the returned candidate, frivolous and non est pleas are being raised to make the thing scandalous that too without any substance and foundation. 7. That in reply to the statements made in para 1 (D) of the interlocutory application, under reply it is submitted that the answering information as required under law and as per u/s 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 at the time of filing of his nomination paper and the certified copy of the records appertaining to G.R. No. 76/2003 may be obtained from the Trial Court. 8. That in reply to the statements made in para 1 (E) of the interlocutory application, under reply it is submitted that the answering respondent has bona fidely disclosed about his assets and liabilities as and when required and there is constituency and commonness the same. 9. That in reply to the statements. made in para 1 (P) of the interlocutory application, under reply it is submitted that the certified copy of the same may be obtained from the competent court. 10. That in reply to the statements made in para 1 (G) of the interlocutory application, under reply it is submitted that the answering respondent has disclosed about the status of the criminal case pending against him in the prescribed column of the nomination papers and there has been no concealment or suppressing in filling up of the particulars in the nomination papers. 11. 11. That in reply to the statements made in para 1 (H) of the interlocutory application, under reply it is submitted that the answering respondents has disclosed about his assets and liabilities and copy of the sale deed can be obtained from the concerned Registry Office. 12. That in reply to the statements made in paras 1 (I) to 1 (M) of the interlocutory application, under reply it is submitted that the answering respondents has already furnished the details in relation to election expenditure and in absence of any allegation in the Election Petition about the same, no fishing and roving enquiry can be made. 13. That in reply to the statements made in para 1 (O)(i) of the interlocutory application, under reply it is submitted that the wife of the answering respondent is a separate assessee of Income Tax and she has been honestly paying her taxes and there can be no justification in calling for her Income Tax Return papers on the mere prayer of the election petitioner that too without any fundamental fact or basis. 14. That in reply to the statements made in para 1 (O)(ii) of the interlocutory application, under reply it is submitted that the answering respondent is an honest assessee of Income Tax and there can be no justification in calling for his Income Tax Returns. 15. That in reply to the statements made in para 1 (O)(iii) of the interlocutory application, under reply it is submitted that the nomination have been affidavited by a Notary in absence of any allegation with respect to his Notarial powers, there can no justification in calling for the same. However this claim of the petitioner cannot be subject matter of this election petition. 16. That it is submitted that the records as called for by the Election petitioner is beyond the cause of action made in the election petition pleadings and beyond the scope of selections 100 and 101 of R.P. Act, and hence, the instant interlocutory application is fit to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. Another interlocutory application being I.A. No. 5818 of 2017 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating inter alia that: 6. It is humbly stated & submitted that the petitioner has taken the stand for advertisement in all the elections held in the years 2005, 2009, 2014. Another interlocutory application being I.A. No. 5818 of 2017 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating inter alia that: 6. It is humbly stated & submitted that the petitioner has taken the stand for advertisement in all the elections held in the years 2005, 2009, 2014. The expenditure met is so high but mentioned in the nomination paper is very low amount. The petitioner approached the print media to supply the detail of expenditure met by respondent no. 1 or the payment made by the respondent no. 1 to print media concerned. They also say that unless the Hon'ble Court directs, the print media will not supply any detail or if the Hon'ble Court directs them to produce the accounts they will produce the documents in the Court directly. 7. That it is humbly stated & submitted that wife of Chandra Prakash Choudhary, respondent no. 1 was to inaugurate a function, named Jyoti Boutique Collection. The invitation was accepted by wife of respondent no. 1 and she inaugurated, the invitation was in the name of Smt. Sangita Chaudhary, wife of Sri Chandra Prakash Choudhary, M.L.A. and Cabinet Minister (Respondent No.1). 4. Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to the I.A. No. 5818 of 2017 has been filed on 25.8.2017 stating inter alia that: 5. That in reply to the statements made in paragraphs 2 & 3 of the interlocutory application, it is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has directed for procuring the certified copy of the same subject to application made by the petitioner with prescribed stamp fees. The petitioner without complying the order passed by this Hon'ble Court and making requisitions for supply of certified copy of the documents has approached this Hon'ble Court and that also on the basis of vague and misleading statements. 6. That in .reply to the statements made in paragraph 4 of the interlocutory application, it is submitted that the same has already been provided to the petitioner and hence, requires no comments. 7. 6. That in .reply to the statements made in paragraph 4 of the interlocutory application, it is submitted that the same has already been provided to the petitioner and hence, requires no comments. 7. That in reply to the statements made in paragraph 5 of the interlocutory application, it is submitted that certain Election Records are in custody of the Returning Officer and it can be only inspected or produced under the orders of Competent Authority and so far the other documents are concerned the same is subject to payment of fees and hence, the assertion of the petitioner apart from being vague, are without any basis and disputed and denied. 8. That in reply to the statements made in paragraph 6 of the interlocutory application, it is submitted that the Election petitioner now in this case cannot dispute the election of the years 2005 and 2009, the tenure of which has already over and moreover when the entire procedures in relation to• expenditure met as required under law has been submitted and not disputed by the competent authority. In so far as the election in the year, 2014 is concerned, the deponent has submitted the entire expenditure records and the election petitioner in absence of pleadings of materials and specific facts cannot raise and insists for fishing and roving enquiry by calling for those records from the media houses. The records before media house has no legal authenticity. 9. That in reply to the statements made in paragraphs 7 & 8 of the interlocutory application, it is submitted that the name of the wife of the deponent is Sunita Choudhary, the details of whom already been he has disclosed in his nomination papers. The deponent emphatically denies that any Sangita Choudhary being his wife and it appears that wrong spelling in the invitation card has been deliberately mentioned by the election petitioner to make the things scandalous. 10. That it is submitted that records as called for by the Election petitioner are on vague facts and beyond the cause of action as made in the election petition pleading and beyond the scope of selections 100 and 101 of R.P. Act and hence, the instant interlocutory application is fit to be dismissed by .this Hon'ble Court with cost." 5. By pressing the aforesaid interlocutory applications. By pressing the aforesaid interlocutory applications. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in order to adjudicate issue involved in the election petition, aforesaid documents be called for, so issue be framed on the basis of those documents which are in custody of the private and public offices who refused to give the copy of the same to the election petitioner. 6. While referring to averments made in the election petition in paras 50, 54, 56 and 57 read with document which has sought for, does not make out a case for calling documents as stated in the aforesaid interlocutory applications. Document mentioned as D, G in I.A. No. 2117 of 2017 is a public document in which certified copy can be taken, so far as the documents E, S. I, J. K, L. M, 0, are concerned, is beyond the• pleadings of the election petition. 7. Similarly, in I.A. No. 5818 of 2017 as prayed for calling the document in paras 6 & 7 of the application, is beyond the pleadings of the election petition. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in the aforesaid interlocutory applications. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5818 of 2017 & I.A. No. 2117 of 2017 stand dismissed.