Sirttle 38^ -^, ^ 1, c^ r/\^ IN_THE HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. 33 ./2005 Petitioner ^ }6 y ^'"^w\'>" ^'y" ^y..x ^- Versus Respondents -^. ^r^^p (^.)T.) '»,"^v ~ ^ ^:^^ ^Cumar Netam S/o Gopi Netajn, Aged about 39 yeai's, Caste Gond (S.T.), R/o Village Buddu Bardha, Post : Arjuni, Tah : Dongargaon, Dist : Rajnandgaon-fC.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Panchayat 8& Development of Urban / Local Admmistration, Mantralaya, D.K.S Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur-iC.G.) The Chhattisgarh State Election Commission, Through Its Secretary / Commissioner Mahanadi Khand, Mantralaya, Parisar, Raipur-(C.G.) The Collector, Dist : Rajnandgaon-iC.G.) The S.D.O. Janpad Panchayat Dongargaon, Dist : Rajnandgaon-(C.G.) Chotelal S/o Ramdas Aged about 26 years, Village Buddu Barda, Post - Arjuni, Tahsil Dongargaon, Dist: Rainandgaon-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA '4. K" ^ ^S^ ^TPTRI'^, "I^^fRTO: ..^S>.:.CQ.^ ^ w^i^r' <;-!.- )t '\. ^ t$-, 14.1.2005 Gn a mention being made, th^ Shri Deepak Jain/counsel fo^ Shri N.K- Aqrawol, bepu+f respondents No.l, 3 and 4. Heard on admission. By the instant writ petil Constitution of India, the petition| 31.12.2004 passed by th^ Sub whereby respondent No.4 approv^ rejecting the nomination paper of i-s. (i) the petitioner has encroa^he< resuit of which a case was regjstej^ed was impo^ed on 16.7<2003 in the petitioner was not abie to filej Scheduled Tribe aitegory/ouid ir^ Judiciai AAagistrate not consideri^g discharge l^ie accused under the (Prevention of Atrocitiea) Act, 198p. Tlie order passed by 1+ie R| revisionai authority under Rule Gi, PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. Maffichan Nfyam, 199S prima fa ^rafepfri ws^-^ fe^ ^^TC '^^Rr^^n^i case is tQken up for heanng. the petitioner< Advocate Seneral for the Stata/ (•ion under Articie 226/227 of the i^r seeks to chadenge the brder dated ^IvisionaJ Offjccr (respondent No.4), the action of the Returning Officer the petitioner herein on two grounds i^hed upon the &oy€rnm€ntland as a against the petitioner Jn which fine case No.81/A-68/02-03;and («> any proof showing that he beiongs to one of the crimsna! axses the Chief th^ petitioner1 as Schedukd Tribe $cheduled Cates cnd Scheduied Tnbes revfenue aturning Officer1 and approved by the 36 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat ia <=anno+ -^l^l^Tl^t^ \- SomQ ^ ^ -s^ ^raM^ l^rray ,.o.:..£...l? f^RK^^'^I^I basis^ In the instwit matter, disfluted focts are involved which cannot under be adjudicated in l4ie writ junsdictij?n. Therefore, I am of the Qplrlion l4i^ extro ordinary Jurisdiction India be exercised. If the petino|ier rjght to fiie election petition a^m therefore, iiabie to be dismj^sed admission 5+090 itseJf. ConsequentJy, M.(W.)P.No.8f disposed of. ohd fe/2005 and I.A.No.242/2005 st^nd ^ ^^te^lt^' that it is not a fit ca^. in which 'Article 226 of the Constitution of has ony gnevc^ice, he is wi-thin his t the impugned order. The petition is Jt is accordJngly, dtsmi^sed, at the Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge '¥/ Gi; PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. -?sr j^^c