& INTHEMON'BLEHIGMCQURTOl=<£HUATriSfiAKH ^••^^tSii^iiBuER,.'.. :'MftiT.piTtl^:N^t^ PETITIONER / NON-APPLIGANT N&...1 •'/ ^: :.:1./1 ,\^ ^^- (6.' ^^ Sachin KumarSinghS/o. J.p. Singh, aged aBout : 33 years, ViGg Priesident, Nagar Panchayat, Jaijaiipur, pistrict ; Janjgir-CHampa (C.G.). Permanent R/o. Ward Ho.3, Jaijaipi.ir; Nagar Panctiayat : Jaijaipi.ff, District : Janjgir-Champa W.G^^' '. : ' . : RESPOMDENTS r] Akhilesh Kumar Soni S/o. Jeevan Lal Soni) aged about : 29 yearg, R/o. JaijSipur, Tahsil : Jaijaipui-, Distrittfe ? Janjglr-Champa CG.G.). APRLKEdM'dT. 2]^ Addifior'iaT Tahsildar : Baradwar & presCl'-ilsed authority, Nagar Panehg^'fft, Jaijaipur, Disti'-i^t : Jahjgir-CMannpa (C.G.). NDN- Wr't.sewrTHO.2 <^ :; . .. . -! ..: . :•• :- 3] Chief ISIagar Parrchayat CtfFieer, Naigar'r^F'ahGhayat : Jaijaipur, Distr-ie): : Jahjgir-Champa CC-G.). N<ffN-^]F'l1Pi3l-3:CANTN0.4 ' ^ '.': ^.....•: : ;.' . : :..... 4] State of Chhattisgarh, Thwugti : Colle'Gtasf, Jahjgjr-Champa (C.G.) N'&N-AKffLlCANT N0. 3 ^f (E •M ii •^j :^ 7 WJttTPETl^GlNUSlRERAElT][C::LE2270FTME CONSTITUTION OiFJNDlA. :;4. ! ^s- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition('227)No. 11 of2011 Petitioner/ : Sachin KumarSin^i Non-ADpUcantNo. 1 Respondents Versus Akhilesh Kumar Soni & Others Writ Petition Under Article 227 oflhe Constitution oftedia fSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aearwal. J.) Present : Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri HS Patel, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 2 & 4. ORALORDER (Passed on 05.01.2011) I. Theinstantpetitionis directedagainst theorderdated 02.12.2010, passed bythe Addl. District Judge, Sakti, Distt. Bilaspur in Misc. Civil Suit No. 02^2010. 2. The respondetit No. 1 filed an election petition under Section 20 ofthe MP/CG MunicipaUties Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). During 1he pendeney ofthe eleetion petition the respondent No. 1 also prefen-ed an application under Section 24 (2) ofthe Act for suo moto inspection ofthe votes east?d in the election, as aecording to him, four invalid votes were counted in petitioner's favour which resulted inpetitioner's suceess inthe election. 3. The trial court, after hearing boththe parties, vide impugned order, directed for production ofsaid votes in asealed cover for its inspection. 4. The only apprehension of leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner is that Ihe above order may be treated by the respondent as final order 'passed in tfae election petition as application was filed by the respondent ,.i^"*5'tS8». ^y- '^ '»>, '8'-: "IS-'''^ '"»;-€-^sf ^fe Sahu No. 1 to declare tiie petitioner's election as void and to declare the respondent No. 1 as duly elected candidate. 5. I have gone through the order impugned. The leamed trial court has not decided the election petition in favour ofrespondent No. 1, On the other hand, the trial court, for due adjudication ofthe election petition, directed for production of said votes in a sealed cover for its inspection and in fhe considered opinion ofthis court, the election petition is yetto be deeided by thetrial eourt on its own merits in accordance with law and the petitioner's apprehension is baseless. 6. In view of above, in tiie considered opinion ofthis court, there is no need to interfere wifh the order passed by the trial court. 7. Accordingly, Ifae petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine. ;' -' N.K. Agrawal Judge '^•... 'I 's^