^ • HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PET1TIONER RESPONDENTS 1 W.P. (227) No.1513/2010 Sita D/o Bali Prasad, VV/o Shivasakal aged about 28 years, R/o Gram Panchayat Silfili, Police Station Pratappur, Tahsil Pratappur, DistrictSurguja (C.G.) (Non-Applicant No.1) Versus Durgawati, W/o Hakim, aged about 25 years, Caste Gond, R/o .Village kanaknagar (Siifili), Police Station Pratappur, Tahsi! Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) (Applicant) Urmila W/o Amar Singh, caste Gond, Dhameliya W/o Ramdhani, Caste Gond Kusum,W/o Sumat, Caste Gond Basanti W/o Shiv Baran Caste Gond Mankunwar W/o Nehi Lal, caste Gond KaiiashoW/o Bhola, Caste Gond Vidyawati, W/o Sakal, Caste kanwar Nanki W/o Genda, Caste Kodaku (The respondent Nos. 2 to 9 are non-applicant Nos.2 to 9 before the learned Specified Officer) The respondent Nos.2 to 9 are r/o Gram Panchayat Silfili, Police 4 5 7 8 10 11 Station Pratappur, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) ; Assistant Election pfllcer Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer cum Specified Officer under Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) W.P.a27)No.1513/2010 A,\ 12 The Janpad Panchayat through the Chief Executive Officer, Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE^2LOFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'u ADpearance: Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Seema Singh, Counse! for respondent No.1. Ms. Neha Verma, Counsel for respondents 2 to 9. Mr. Arun Sao, Government Advocate for respondent No.11. ORALORDER (22.02.2011) SUNIL KUMARSINHA.J. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kanaknagar, Janpad Panchayat Pratappur, District Sarguja (C.G.). Her election has been called in question by respondent No.1 by filing an election petition under Section 122 ofthe PanchayatRajAdhiniyam, 1993 before respondent No.11 -Sub Divisional Officer/Specified Officer. During the pendency of the ejection petition, at the instance of respondeht No.1, the Specified Officer (respondent No.11) passed the impugned order dated 27.03.2010 and directed that since the election petition has been filed challenging the election of the petitioner questioning her caste, financiai powers vested in the petitioner are taken off and the same would now vest in the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pratappur (respondent No.12). The text of the impughed order reads as follows : W.P.(227) No.1513/2010 ^' ^... ^n^iwr ai^ii^^i stor^ (^.) iw^, ^R^JTT //^m// ^Rfcp 183/^rra^/io y^i4^,RTi 27.3.2010 if^r, ^q ct5i44id<i STta^t, ^FR^ H^iNay^l1!^ W{ Tmra?r 4)^c})^^i^ ^ ^r ^tf^r TRTN ^ft^t ^rr ^t ^ f^p^ ^fc^ ^r ^ ^r^ ^r ^NH^ ^ ^m^i ^TfNn ?R^T isiTti 3RT: ^cRT gz^T ^ R\i|cb\;u| ^ ^q? TnTf xNlZRT ZRZp ^TTR ^ WR^ 1^N ^ 3R ct)Nf qn an^w te'°T ^T stoK 3TTOTT ^N^TKfrtl ^t ^jtci'+irfl^i gita^t (^T.) ^RIH^?, V^] Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that respondent No.11/Specified Officer was having no jurisdiction/authority to pass such an order. He argued that the eiection petition is filed under Section 122 otVne Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and there are rules i.e. Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 toconctuct the proceedings of the election petition, but no provision of the Act or Rule provides jurisdiction to the Election Tribunal to pass such an order. He would further submit that unless the election ofthe petitioner is set aside by the Tribunal, such order couid not have been passed bythe Election Tribunal. '^^/ »%%^'^' 4 W.P.(227l N0.1S13/2010 Learned counsel for the respondents could not show any provision of law, which may give jurisdiction to the Tribunal to pass such an order. Even jt is not reflected from the impugned order that such order was passed based on the rinding recorded by the Election Tribunal or holding any allegation to be prima facie true against the petitioner or on account of irregularity committed by the petitioner indischarge of her duties as Sarpanch ofthe Gram Panchayat On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, 1 am of the view that the impugned order passed by respondent No.11/Specified Officer is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.03.2010 isquashed. No order as to cost(s). [ \ [•_ Sd/- | ! • [Sanil KumarSinha j Judge | shyna