SINGLE BENCH ^ ,f.\.^".- ;?' i < 1 003 IN THE H1GH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. ^^°/2005 PET1T10NER ^^ ^>M'-"""" _/ ^^^y Jay Prakash, S/o Bhim Nirmal, Aged about ^<b years R/o Village Cheecha, Post Bhathena, Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg (CG) .. ^ .^^•' ^y'^"' Versus ^ .^'- ^^ESPONDENTS r-1. ,«^ '^i-s ---•<"" ^"i^ '/ •^^ -,..^-?"''< "\ -'^'-^' .^ .- :°':^2. c^^^0 ^. G..vtt*^sl' State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Panchayat & Social Welfare Department DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Patan, District-Durg (C6). Janpad Panchayat, Patan Through its Secretary, Janpad Panchayat Patan, District- Durg (CG). Kaushal Kumar Chandrakar, S/o Bhirkho Ram; Aged about 45 years, R/o Village Cheecha, Post Bhathena, Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3. 4. ...-.—._.—rf<.—..- .._.._.-„.-. —. JC^ t.1 —F-^- XI-HC-78 HI*1rt|SFTTq? \dw|^qiqirt«,tP-^1\ins;Rlrtl1<iy'< /^).p'. srr^^T q^ (ijci^cicE;) ^Ft20Q^ 05Q 3TT^^T<CTRrfi<P ?CT3n^$T?P'HT<P ~^J S^TT^R^rf^T 3TT^$T 14-9-2005 . Mr. P.R. Patankar, counsei^ Mr Yashwant Singh , Tha) Chhattisgarh. Heard both the counsei. The petitioner-has prefer^ 227 of the Constitution of Indi^ correctness of the order dated Officer (Revenue), the Specifi^ Officer has ordered for recounll Brief facts leading. to'fi| petitioner herein and responden^ Panch of Gram Panchayat: Cheec| resuit was cleciared on 20th prepared, copy of the js Aj the petitioner herein secured 32 yotes. :However, r^ said result, filed an BJection p| PaTun^.on the ground that the petitioner herein receiyed 3 secured by respondent Janu|sry respor|dent <pi<4lo<i1vi ^MoT^'fc^Sl ^RI^IX ^SI^TOT^ST for the petitioner. <ur, &ovt. Advocate for the State of 1-ed this writ petition under Article 226/ ^questioning the legalit/, propriety and R3-8-2005 passed by the Sub-Divisionai |d Officer, whereby iearned Specified lof the votes. ing of this writ petition are that the No.4 contested eiection for the post of ^a, Tehsii: Patan, District: Durg, and the f, 2Q05, after that a counting slip was ^inexure P-l. According to the counting, 45 votes, whereas, respondent No.4 |spondent..No,4.being aggrieved by the etition' before 'the 'Specified Officer/ No.4 -in fact rece.Jved 45 votes and ^ votes, but by -rTiistake the votes which ^oA were recorded in favour of the XI-HC-78 ^TTi^Hirt-y, tpTi11<i<i<o, Rowy .^..s....^^&^ ^Moi^^n^.........—.—..—.......^. 3n^$T q^cl? (^cli^clt^) ^200^ 051 aTT^^T^Tf^TFP ^TT3TT^^Tfl)+li<P —^— B^TTW ^rflPT 3TI^$T -^ petitioner and-the yotes which recorded in favour of resp irreguiarity, the resuit VTOS' respondent No.4 for cou over to-him, and a representatij petitioner hereln raised prell petition that copies 'of the petit Ruie 3 (2) of the Chhattisgarhl Practices and Disqua!ification f.c| referred to as 'the Ruies, 199| Specifled Of.ficer. Thereafter, election petition and after Specified Officer ordered for r In the. election.petition, secure^-45 votes and the petl irreg-ubrity, the votes secure^ favour- of the' petitioner and th^ entered in the account of tE/ie resuit affected. His counting, respondent No.4 askec| handed over to him< These cpi«[<?><Tl<ri+ii+iol'^? fel^l xRn^ix ^3T(^T3n^?T -secured by the petitioner herein ^sp^ndent No.4, on account of this materiai jsffected. . After -counting . over, sting ;^p, but the was not handed' t)n was;also'filed, but to no result, The |ninary objection agai.nst the. eiection |.on were not delivered to him in terms of Panchayats (E'ection Petitions, Corrupt [r Membership) Ru'les, 1995 (hereinafter p'/), but the was. rejected by the the pe'titioner' herein filed return to the he|iring counsel for the parties, iearned fecount. respondent No.4's ciaim was that he Honer herein 'secured 32 votes, but by 'by. respondent No,4 were entered in votes secured by the"petitioner herein ^espondent No.4, and on account of that, purther ailegation is that at the end of. forcounting slip, but thesame not fa|:ts have .denied by the petitioner l^- XI-HC-78 <-II*IWI^»17^ ^wT^IKIIOO; tPtTlK141<?,Roi<<iy<< ...^.^..^^.,.^^0^ °52 3n^^TzroRHicb WTT3TT^$T5OTTT^ <£ STI^ST m? (q^fg^) herein. Therefore, as. per the 1995, iearned Specified .Offi€|sr pjeading of the parties on wi iearned Specified pfficer their. evidence in support of th Specified Officer. Withoutfc the Rules, 1995, based on th] hearing the arguments, ieame^ order which is perverse and iil^ .Rules 11 <&. 12 of the Ruies, i99\ !iab!e to be set aside* As far as the questio'^ iearn^d counsei for the petitH objection which-was raised b) raised in the repiy of the e!e iearned Specifjed0fficerisr| and decide the objection at t Detjtion. It is ciear that thl on preiiminary objection rais^ <PI<lJc54lv1 *11<1C5T^" t^l^l xRl^I^ ^3Tf^H3n^$T ' provisions of Rules 11 A 12 of the Rules, was required to frame issues on the lich they at varignce., thereafter, required to aiiow the^ parties to adduce sir cldms, same has not done by the ibwing the procedure as envisaged under a eiectjon' petition anc! repiy, and after Specjfied Officer the impugned gal, as the same is not in conformity with ^ and .on this count the impugned orde.r is of prellminary objection-. is concerned, mer hereh submits that the pre!lminary the petitioner herein has already been :tion petjtion in paragraph 7/ therefore, ^qulred to frame -issue. on that'point aiso ie time of find hearing of 'the.ejection B order'passed by'the-Specified Officer d by the petitsoner -herein wili not be XI-HC-78 *iiN<^i a»^nr^ Kiw|'^qiqiC9<t;tPT?lwK?,RoiX1^X ...^.:.K...^SO./...,. 053 W^200^ 3rIT^9T q?PP (^clljd^) 3TT^^T<PTRVii<h ^TT3TT^$T3RN? 'L.-.C J-" Somo ^. ^ v 7 ^ y < ^niR:?Tf^T3TI^$T ^ .treated as bar-in deciding the ekction petition on merit. In view of the above or| deserve..s..to.,be aliowed and the] ^et aside; • Notice of this writ petitie as the order impugried is paten'| Ruies 11 d. 12 of the Rules, 19^ unnecessarily delay^ the .proce^ respondent No.4» However, 'if. ^ be at iibert/ to move an appiica'| In viewof this order, M^ stand disposed of, Parties are-entltied for c| ^xid objection at the time of deciding the <pi<iI<»><Tlri+ii+iol" ^" i^l<£Ixtvt^ci<< ^ ^3Tf^:T3TT^^T ~ |Jer, the writ petition.Q.f thepetitioner same is albwed. 'The;order impugned is n is not being-issued to respondent No.4, }iy ill'ega! and .perverse,.; being co.ntrary.to |5. Therefore/issuance of notice would |dings of the election', petition fiied by ^espondent No.4 is stiil^dggrieved, he wili Fion for modificatjon of this order. (|W.)P.No.3521/2005 <& I.A.No.7839/2005 srtified copy of this order. Sd/- L.C.Bbadoo Judge