^••^^^"^ ^^iitfc?3'-'"'^'' IN THE HIGH COUKr Ut-' CHHA'ITISGARH : BILASPUK Petitloner Defes ^a'*~»/^C»-f+ .<-'^LjLt-t-CtJLt. ^- Writ Petition No. 4270 of 2005 Shyani Ratan, S/o 'I'ikarani Yadav (cD, Vishu Datt, Aged about 45 years, R/o Gram Paachayat Rohasi, Tahsii Palaii, Distt. Rajnnr <r* a t ^..^.J^^.. ^*-.. ~^.j, Versus Kespondents 1. Siyaram, S/o Bhagat Ram Kannojje, Aged 45 years, R/o Ward No.2, Grani Panchayat Rohasi, Jaupad Paachayat & TahsU Palan, Distt. Raipur. 2. Aaju Ram S/o Uuknown, Yadav, Aged about 60 yeare, R/o Ward No.2, Grajn Paachayat Rohasi, Jaupad Paachayat fis Tatisil Palari, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Lakhanlal, S/o Sadhurain Sahu, Aged about 45 years, R/o Ward No.2, Grara Panchayat Rohasi, Janpad Paachayat & TaIisU Palari, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 4. R. S. Jaho (presiding oiBcer) Pooluig Boofh No. 175, Gram Paiichayat Rohasi, Mahauadi, Godawari, Kachhar, Raipur, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Agriculture Departuient, Raipur, Distt. RaipurfC.G.) 5. The SDO (Revenue) Bsdoda Bazar (Specified Officer, Jaapad Pauchayat Paiari, Taasu Palari, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OFTHE CON^TITUTION QF IND'A, (SB: Hon'ble Stm. Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Mauoj Paranjpe, Advocate for fhe petitioner. SIiri Gurudeo Sharaa, Advocate for fhe responri.ent No. 1. O RD E R (Passed on this 19th Day ofNovember, 2008) 2. By tfais petition, filed under Ardcle 227 of the Constitution ot India, the petitioner impugns the order dated 27.7.2005 (Aanexure P/5) passed by tfae Sub Uivisional Officer (Kevenue), Baloda Bazar, District - Kaipur in Paachayat Petitiou No. 03/A-89/2004-05, whereby the election petition lUed by ttie respondent No. 1 was altowed without tramnig issues aad examinmg evidences. Shri Maaoj Paraujpe, leamed. counsel appearmg for tbe petitioner submits Uiat Rllle 11 (1) of the Chhattisgarh F^" -^ssst" ,_,.-.-i;*^.. 3m? Panchayats (Election Petitions, Cox'i-upt rt-actices aad Disqualitication tor Meinbership) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules, 1995') provides ftiat eveiy election petition shatl be enquired iuto by ttie specitied officer as nearly, as niay be, in accordauce with tlie procedure applicable under the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial ot tfcte sults. 3. It is indisputabie tbat ttie election petition tias been decided by the prescribed otncer, witbout tramiag issues and exi witnesses. Ttus Court iu the matter ot Parvatia Vs. Padmini & ottiers1 has considei'ed the identical issue and observed that Uie elecnoa petiuon cannot be decicted witnout traaung issues and examiiiins witoesses produced by tlie parties as well as atibrduig aa opporturuty to cross-examniation ot the witaesses, wJtlo have tiled attictavits iii ttie election petitoon. It is, even otberwise, well setUed that ttie election petition is like a trial in the Court aud no petition caa be decided without foUowiag tfie procedure under provisions of the Cocte of Civil Procedure, 1908. 4. Shri Ourudeo Stiaraa, leamed counsel appeailng for the respondeut No. 1 tairly subuuts that tlie election petoition has not been decided, ui accordaiice with tlie procedure appiicable to the election petition. 5. ln view of the foregouig, witjtiout expiBSsing any opinion on the nierits ol t&e case, the impugned order dated 27.7.2005 (Alinexure P/5) is set aside. 'l'tie niatter is reuutted with a direction to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Rrescribed Otficer, Baloda Bazar, Oistrict- Kaipur tbr tresh tnal ot the election petltlon, in accordarice with law. 6. I'he petition 1s allowed to tbe above extent. N| Thalau