t^.vefo'f.^^;c3) IN THE HIGH CQURT QP JUDICATURE^AT^BILASFtJR CHHAmSGARH ..-•^ . ' \^.-^y.. „„.„„„„.„....S-('7^L^ „„„ •^^y' -..••'* WRJT PBTITION. N0. OF 2006 ^f¥;-" a^/ .^^ ^^"" BETWEEN ^ ^ Vishwanath Ram Sidar S/o Shri Kavitram , aged about 27years, r/o Village Tanger Bahri , Gram Panchayat Harra Dand, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur Nagar (CG). .^ <*^' PETITIONER »s.> ^- o I.'* siT03 AND R^ li^ "s%^ ^g,.^ 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Department of Panchayat , Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G.) ^2. The Collector , Jashpur (CG). ' 3. Sub Divisional Officer, ( R) Kunkuri ,district Jashpur Nagar (CG). , ; ^4. Leyos S/o Siril, by caste Oraon, resident of Village Harradand, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (CG). /' 5. Alvis Tirki S/o Etwa Tirki, resident of Village Harradand, Tahsil Kunkuri District Jashpur (CG). ^ 6. Phuljens S/oMangaru, resident ofVillage Harradand, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpyr (CG). RESPONDENTS / ^A^ g.^J! y^/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF CONSTITUTION OFINDIA XI-HC-78 *11*1WI ^HT^i 3^'snqTcra', eiTflw'is, (eiciiuy irar ..^ j?. X^?; ?. LC>A wr 200 3TT^?T<4ach (li^i^cf<^8T) sn^T^rf^TR? ^TT3n^Tsh^|cb ?T(iTWHf?g'3n^T 2.8.2006 Smt. Renu Kochar, Advocat®for Ihe petitioner. Shri N.K. Agarwal, Depu'fy Advocate Seneral for the Stcrte on advance copy. Heard. By this petitiwi the pe^itioner has prayed for a direction to respondent No.2 to pass the i^rdw wi-rtiin the stipulcrted time on the point of jurisdiction and to 26.12.20)5 (Annexure P-6). Lfiarned counsel for the respondent No.4 and passed the EfiraferifrT tirrof ^'te^ tRrRre ^iSTf^iTsn^r set aside ihe ex-parte orcter dated petrtioner argued that in an election petition,order passed by the Sjaecified Officer in aceordanw wl1+) the Panchayats (Election Petitions, £|orruptPraeticas and bisqualificcrtion for MemberAip) Rutes, 1995 Oiereitiofter referred to as the Rutes 1995'), is final and no appeal lies agaii^st the order of the ^ecified Officer passed in election petition, as p^rfajle 25 of the Rule 1995. Inspite of that, respondent No.2 Coltect^r has enterf'ained tiie oppeal filed by ex-parte order 26.12.2005 (Annexure P- 6). stnying the effect and o^siwtwn of the order passed by the Specified Officer dated 13.1^.2005 (Annexure P-4). She further submits that even reply has b^en filed by the petitioner herein but respondent No.2 is deliberately r(ot deciding -ttie appeal. A limited proyer has be^) made in this petition •that respondent No.2-Collector Jashpur be dinec^ed to decide the appeal at the earliest, P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3:^'^(rai^pr, ®Tf)ti'i(»,feidiyy *ii*iMia-i*n^ ?T^ 200 aTI^TV^K (i{c| f^c<^g-) sn^r^rf^iTg; (raTan^rgiirR; Roshan/- ,.T' ^ ?<%> 'tf 'w bb'" ??tnwHf?tr3n^r ^ therefore, notices are not being issuance of notice would petition. As per Rufe 25 of -fhe Ru|i Officer on an election petition same, therefore, in ihe decide •the appeal including on of 30 doys from Ihe ckrte of rec^i With the direetion Consequently,M.(W.)P. Cwtif'ied copy as per rule^. circtimdtonces t e afor^said Wlfe^T ITOTf ^'fe^)-^f^FZTC ^Sl^ITSn^T lssi»dto respwident Nos.4 to 6 as "the furth^r delcy -the proceedings of this writ (es 1995, order passed by the Specified is final and no appeal lies ogainst •rtie rcum^toices, respondent No.2 is directed to ground of jurisdiction wilhin a period rec^ipt of copy of this order. fsfor^ssud, the petition stands disposed of. Naj.2942/06 also stands disposed Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge P.T.O.