d^ ^y-^i— IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION(Q N0. U4 ^ /2010. PETITIONER: >i. v- -M- ^ 4 Smt.Fuleshwari Sahu Sahu, aged about 32 years, wife of Shri Poonam Sahu, residence of village Saragaon, Police Station Kharora, Post Saragaon, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Versus Respondent: \^ .-f^ ^-^ ^..yl^" -^*- ^' .^ ^'",...- >^. v ,^v^v ^' ^y ^^ 1. Smt. Prabha Sahu, aged about 26 years, wife of Shri Mahesh Kumar Sahu, residence of village Pavni, Post Khauna, Police Station Dharsiva, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. - ^ ^j i 2. Smt.Dulari Bai, aged about 30 eyars, wife of Shri Kaushal Sahu, residence of village Saragaon, Police Station Kharora, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Smt.Punni Dewangan, wife of Shri Neelkanth Dewangan, residence of village Saragaon, Police Station Kharora, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Returning Officer, (Panchayat) Block Dharsiva, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ^j -:y ^- 1. WRIT PETITION UNDER^ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OPTHE PETITIONER(S): ,-1'L;^-""% r^y%j ' ^.// ^ ^ HjGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 4469 of 2010 PETITIONER : Smt. Fuleshwari Sahu. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Smt. Prabha Sahu & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri C.J.K.Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.L.Saket, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. None for the respondent No. 2 and 3. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 23rd day ofOctober, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 28.06.2010 (Annexure P/l) and 13.07.2010 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Upper Collector, Raipur, (Electioh Tribunal) in No. 12 A-89-A(15)A'ear 2009- 10 whereby the Election Tribunal has directed for recounting ofvotes, and as a sequel, the respondent No. 1 was declared as a returned candidate. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Election Tribunal has decided the matter without framing issues and without affording proper opportunity to the parties to adduce evidences, documents, thus, the impugned order is bad in law. 3. Shri Rao relies on a decisions of this Court rendered in Parvatia v. Padmini & Others1 and Shyam Ratan v. Siyaram & Others in support of his submission that no election petition can be decided without framing issues and examining the witnesses produced by the parties. 1 2005 (2) CGLJ 335 2 WP No.4270 of 2005 (decided on 19-11-2008) --r ^ k Ashok Shri Saket, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 as well as Shri Bhaduri, leamed Panel Lawyer appe^ring for the State/respondent No. 4, fairly submit that the impugned orders suffer from deficiency and infirmity on account ofthe above stated reasons. Thus, the impugned orders may be quashed and further the matter may be remitted back to the election tribunal for deciding the same in accordance with law after framing issues and examining witnesses properly. Leamed counsel for the parties further submit that a stipulated time may be fixed for decision ofthe election petition in view ofthe fact that there has been a delay on account ofthe impugned decision, which could not sustain in the eyes oflaw. Having regard to the facts situation of the case and considering the submissions made hereinabove, as the principle of law is well settled that no election petition can be decided finally without framing proper issues and examining witnesses, if produced by the parties., the impugned orders dated 28.06.2010 (Annexure P/l) and 13.07.2010 (Annexure P/2) are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to restore in its original file and decide the case in accordance with law. In view ofthe foregoing, it is expedient and proper to direct the Election Tribunal to consider and decide the case afresh, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date ofreceipt ofacopy of this order. The petition is allowed to the above extent with no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge