INJ'HE HIGILCOURT OFJUDICATURE CHHAmSGARH AT Petitioner g^'Ste.. ^S'?..i}K^!;S^ Versus Respondents ..^s"- ••>; ^'^:"^ 2_4-^^ o / 2005 4. .^•' ^;'^ 7, Naindas Satnami S/o Anjoradas Satnami, Aged about 36 years, R/o Village Goindra Janpad Panchayat Patharia, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Kanhaiyalal S/o Chowaram, aged about 33 years, R/o Village Goindra Janpad Panchayat Patharia, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). Kashiram S/o Shri Samaruram, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Goindra Janpad Panchayat Patharia, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). Guniram S/o Unknown, aged about 50 years, R/o village Tengnagarh, Janpad Panchayat Patharia, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). Chu-anjeevlal S/o Jagatram, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Goindra, Janpad Panchayat Patharia, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). i/o Shri Jagatram, a'ged about 55 years, R/o Village Goindra, Janpad Panchayat Patharia, Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.j. Surendra Kimar S/o Shri Mohan Lal, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Goindra, Janpad Panchayat Patharia, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). 1 Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Anup, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Tengagarh, Janpad Panchayat Patharia, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). « Ui!^j: II ;nw'';sss-su^Bs K s^ ' rs \ 1 ^ i M^'^f^ 8. 9. 10. 11. 1 O Shravv'an PAanik Puri S/o Shri Purandas, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Goindra, Janpad Panchayat Patharia, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). Retuming Officer, S.K. Goutara, Additional Tahsildar Patharia, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.j. ed Mohanrain S/o Unkonwn, a^ about 28 years, R/o Village Tengnagarh, Janpad Panchayat Patharia, Distt. Bilaspur (C.O.). Village Dwarika Prasad S/o Rewaram, 'd about 36 years, R/o Gonidra, Janpad Panchayat Patharia, Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.j. Sub Divisional Ofiicer Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.j. -WRIT PETITION U/A 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^,f.yw-"'w- Particulars_of the Petitioner. As per cause title. Particulars of the Respondents. As per cause title. •''•3. Particulars of the order against which the petition is being filed : 1. 2. Order dated Passed by 22.02.2005 Sub Divisional Officer, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur ( C.G.). li:";w XI-HC-78 m*tcTTawTq> 3^'^rraRra', (STny'is, fsiciiti^<, .^...B^^>®/.^ 200^ 3T1^?T4^cb (li,c<Ij,SIS.<T) sn^Tqirf^ii^ OTT3IR?Tsht|l<ti CTcTTW^tT3:[1^T ifirafefl^ HTRcft'tf te^T rfSRZTC ^arf^q'sn^T 4^-2006 Mr. Kunal Das, counsel for th^ petitioner. Mr. G.K. Beriwal, Deputy Adv|ocate General for the State/ respondent No.12. Heard on IANo.6823/2006, petition. IA.No.6823/2006 is allowed application for amendment in the writ Amended petition has already been filed, that is taken on record. Also heard learned counsel fc|r the |Wrties, on admission. By the instarrt writ petition un^ler Article 228/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged t|ie legality, validity and correctness ofthe order dated 22" February, 2005, |passed by the Sub Divisional CXficer, Mungeli, Distrkst: Bilaspur, whereby|leamed Sub Dwisipnal Officer rejected the election petition filed by the petiti^ner herein. Brief facts leading to fiflng of thts writ petition are that the petitioner contested for the post of Sarpanc^ of Gram F'anchayat: Goindra. The election was held on 23 January, during the course of counting the El^ction Officer informed the petitioner that he has won the election for the post 2005 and as per the petitioner's case, of Sarpanch by a margin of one vote on which the petitioner asked for the c|ertificate to that effect, but the Eleciion OfRcer asked him to wait for some tiihe. After some time, the Eledion Officer declared that respondent No.1 Kanh^i^ Lal and the petitioner have obtained equal votes against which the p^titioner gave written objection to the Returning Officer, Patharia. The recounting of the votes, whieh was Officer. Ori 27-11-2005, byway of Sarpanch. The petitioner flled electi^ before the Specified OfRcer, Mungel |)etitioner also gave an application for 1 not at att considered by the Returning lots, respondent No.1 was declared as ^n petition aggrieved bythe said decision |i. Learned Specifled OfRcer wde order P.T.O. XI-HC-78 T=T "MI'MIM^, ®Tny'ie,fsjdiy^< *41*1WI Sh*1|ch • ^ 200 5- Sii^i ^ach (lic<t4cl<^!ET) an^r^irf^iRi OTran^rsRiiN; ?^(TTW tifN'sn^T ^ qii^Fii'fl-i iiHciT^'fs^t <!«i''-<ii< ^'arf^iTsn^T dated 22-2-2005 dismissed the elecl Disqualification for Memberehip) Rul ion petition mentioning in the order that he himself was present on the sp^)t and there was no irregularity in the election process. The said order of|the S.D.O. is bad in law as the same is passed without following the proi^edure envisaged in Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Electio|i Petitions, Corrupt Practices and is, 1995 (for short the Rutos, 1995'). Having heard learned couns|el for the parties, 1 have perused the impugned order. It has been mentio(ied in the order that electton for the post of Sarpanch was held at Block Heaifquarter: Patharia which was conducted by draw of lots, the Specified Offic^r himself was present on the spot, no body raised any objection against th^ devising of system of draw of lots, even the petitioner has not moved any obj] the lots were drawn and when he ws| this objection, therefore, the matter| dismissed. The order passed by the Spe) ^ction application, he remained sitent tilt |s defeated in the draw of lots, he raised is not flt for any proceedmgs, same is tsifled Officer is ex-Tacie ill^al, perveree and contrary to the Rules, 1995. The^efore, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself wjithout issuing notice to the remaining respondents as issuance of notice w| but it will put unnecessary financial Ij II not only delay the further proceedings, lurden on the respondents and issuance of notice is not going to serve any jiurpose as such the order impugned is liabte to be set aside at the threshol4 However, ifany ofthe respondents still feel aggrieved, he will be at libertyto|file application for recalling ofthis order and that application wilt be decided s|fter hearing both the parties. The impugned order, as m|entioned earlier, has bean passed in complete viotation of the Rules, 1^95. Rute 11 (1) of the Rules, 1995 envisages that "sub^ctto tlie pfovisi^ins (rfffiese niles, evetyelectton peWon shall be enquirwi into by the spe^iffed oHicer as neariy, as may be, in P.T.O. ^s B!K / / XI-HC-78 an^rqirf^Ri craT3TR?Tst)t|lt> Soma ./.</ •^l.0' '^. ^ *imcTT<ifiHT^ 731 -^WM^, fSTS\W\<c, fsldltiy ..h?:^.^^?^ 200 s 3il^i Maih ('i,c<(^<stS'iT) WITWflfNsil^T ^ ProvidM partfes order to decid^ the according wrttti the procedure appl 1908. tothe trtal of su/te; specllied offlcer to make a any witness examined tiy hiirf. Ri that "It shai! be »eduty offfie, fixed for evidence, and they shail attendance oftheir w/tnesses". Therefore, in herein the Specified Officer was petition and fottow the procedure aj 1995 by allowing the parties to evidence. But, in this case, 1< procedure for disposal of the ele| Rules, 1995, as such, the order in| beset aside and it is hereby set a^ to restore the election petition on i< accordance w h law and the Rulesl With the observation and di disposed of, at the admission stag^ Consequently, M.OA/.)P.I^ 1087/2006 also stand disposed of.| Parties are entitled for certil vltcable under the Cocte of Civil Procedure, that It shall only be necessary for ttie inemof^ndum ofttie sufisfance oftheevidence of |te 12 ofthe Rules, 1985 further envisages to prodwe ffielr wltnesses on ttie ctete pot be entltted to an adjoiimment for non- 'niitd'Tl'i *lwilTffte<^l'<Ri'Ki< ^>3i1^T3n^T election petition fited bythe petitioner r^quired to enter into enquiry of the election a^ envisaged in Rutes 11 & 12 ofthe Rules, file their documents as welt as the oral l^arned Specified Officer has devised a ?|3tion petitfon which was unknown to the in|ipugned is wholly iltegal, same is liabte to ^ide. Learned Specifled Officer is directed (s original number and decide the same in |, 1995, after gh/ing nottee to all the parties. |irection aforesaid, the writ petition stands itseff. '(0.1936Q005, IA.Nos.4711/2005 and ed copy of this order. V.C Sd/-. ^adoo iud9e P.T.O.