^ v ^•^^" m &B£E' ^^ ^^ ^ VA^_ ^ ^^" ^ ^ ^^.·t ^' .>--'" ^- ^°; (?^"t^2—-: IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'mSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION Ca No. ^lfe^ /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS -b *- / Sumita Bai W/o Bhagirathi Kanwar Aged about 40 Years R/o Village Pasid, Tehsil Shakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS ^l. Anupram S/o Shir Malik Ram Sidar R/o Village Pasid, Tehsil Shaktj, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ^ 2. Karmu Singh S/o Shir Masat Ram Gond R/o Village Pasid, Tehsil Shakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) "3. Returning Officer Polling booth 96, 97, 98 Shakti, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) -4. Sub Divisional Officer Cum Specified Officer ynder Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, Tehsil Shakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) c^ WRTTPETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSnTUTION OFINDIA [ PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION.NO. 4268 OF2010 f\ Sumitra Bai RESPONDENTS Versus Anupram & Others (Writ Petition under Article226/227 oftheConstitution of India) SingleBench:Hon'bleShriSatish K.Agnihotri,J. Presepit:- Shri Basant Dewangan, Advbcate for the petitioner. Shri ShashankThakur, Panei Lawyer-forthe State. -, - ORDER CORAL) , (Passed 6n this 15th day of July,;2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is totheorder dated 30.04.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Sub Divisional Officer -cum- Specified Officer, Shakti, District Janjgir-Champa (for short "the election tribunsS"}, whereby the electipn petitjon filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, 3. The petitioner alongwith respondent no.1 & 2 contested the election of Gram Panchayat, Pasid, Tehsil Shakti, Djstrict Jahjgir-Champa. The respondent No.1 was declared as elected on 05.02.2010. The petitionerpreferredanelectionpetitipnunderthe provisibns ofSection ^ 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 read with the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Election Petition Corrupt Practices and Disqualifjcation for Membership) Rules, 1 995 (for short 'the Rules, 1995"). It was alteged that in Booth No.96, 533 votes were polled, 159 votes were cast in favour of the petitioner and out of 533 votes, only 451 votes were counted and 83 votes were left out without any reasons, and as such, the petitioner was defeated by 82 votes. 4. It is contended before this Court that the election petition has riQt been decided in accordanGe with the procedure, as laid down under Rule 11 & 12 pf the Rules, 1995. The witnesses were not examined, which is mandatory before deciding the election petitjon. iT •f' -'./ .1':' .' -"'? ,..^-^;.j, •V1'.' 8. 9. Ashok The respondent no.2| did not appear befbre the election tribunsil, despite servjce of notice. It was foynd that the counting of votes took ptace on 31.01.2010, immediafelyafter polljng of votes. In Bpqth N6.96; the petitionerget 159 vofesandtherespondentNo.lget 144 votes. The respondent No.2 obtained 121 votes and 27 votes were rejecfed.It was further held that there was sufficient light and the ^countihg was uninterryptec!. The petitioner has not raised any dispute eitherbefore the electi0n officerbr police stationwith regardto missing of(^r^invotes,'asitisno^found^nperusalpftheorigina^^^^^ The presymption pf the petitioner that 82 votes might have been polled jn his favour is without any basis, as the petitioner has not produced any document pr had examined any witness in support of his contention befbre the eleGtion tribunal. The petitioner has further not argued that the agents bf the petitioner was held out in this Court and no evidence, jt appears, has been produced before the election tribunal to record ahy positive finding. Be that as it may, the election of a candjdate cannot be set aside on the basis ofguesswork and conjectures. Sanctity ofeleGtion hasto be maintained, as the voters of the area, after exercising their franchise, had efected a carTdjdate j.e. respondent No.1, thus, it cannot be set aside on the basis of mere submission or statement. Hence, the decision of the Tribunal is just and proper. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the tribunal has nof followed the procedure, as lajd down in Rule 11 & 12 of the Rules, 1995 has -no force, as rt was, for the petitioner to produce evidehces and examine witnesses. The petitioner was duly examined, the respondent No. 1 was also examined and the respondent No.2 remained absent, despite service of notice. Thus, there was nd infirmjtyon thiscountalso. For the reasbns mentioned hereinabove, the writ petjtion is dismissed. No order asto costs, 1 Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .M'M .••!-' •l^ ./'1 : ',("'."•.'•.":''. !^ ,• •rl :^:' .i"';''.'/'^'' Lj