HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Writ Petition (Cl No. S904 of 2006 Smt. Aiisa Ekka W/b Hermon Ekka, aged 40 years, R/o viiiage Charaikhara (Dand Toli), Tah. Kunkuri, DistrictJashpur(CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Hermon Minj, S/o Buiu Minj, R/o Village Charaikhara (Dond Toli), Tah. Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (CG) (Candidate for Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Charaikhara). 2. Ramanuj Minj S/o Johan. 3. Rither Lakda S/o Chuda. 4. Prakash Barwa W/o Heiariyus. 5. Amelda Toppo W/o Silvester. 6. Pharansis Kujur S/o Joseph Kujur The respondent No. 2 to 6 are formal party and resident of Village Charaikhara Tah. Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (CG). 7. Panchayat Election OfRcer, Govt. of ChhatSisgarh. 8. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (CG). (WRiT PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon-ble Mr. Satish K. Aanihotri.J,) Present : Mrs. M. Asha, Advocate for the petitioner. (Passed on 24 day of November, 2008) 1) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 23.09.2006 (Annexure-P/5) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Prescribed Authority (Panchayat) (for short 'the SDO'), Kunkuri Distt. Jashpur, in Panchayat Election Petition No. 01/A-89 (21)/04-05, whereby the petition fiied by the petitioner herein was dismissed. 2) The indisputable facts, in nutsheil, as projected by the petitioner, are that the respondent No.1 was eiected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Charaikhara, Tah. Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (CG). The petitioner made a compiaint and fiied an ';••%» election petitlon under Section 122 of tiie Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for s,tx>rt "the Act, 1993"), stating that the respondent No.1 is having four children and the fourth chiid was born after 26 day of January, 2001 i.e. on 07.04.2002, which is evident from Annexure P/1. Thus, the respondent No.1 is disqualified to hold the office of Sarpanch under the provjsions of Section 36 (1) (m) of the Act, 1993. The SDO, by order dated 23.09.2006, dismissed the election petition stating that the petitioner has not proved the allegations. Thus, this petition. 3) iVlrs. M. Asha, learned counsei appearing for the petitioner, wouid submit that the SDO without appreciating the fact that the fourth chiid of the respondent No. 1 born after 26!" day of Januar^', 2001 i.e. on 07.04.2002, has dismissed the p6tition which is not at aii sustainabie. 4) This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. Once the process of making decision was in accordance with taw and there is no error in the decision making process, the decision itseif cannot be questioned under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india. 5) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bachan Singh Vs. Union of india and Others' observed as under: "Judidai review under Articie 226 of t'ne Constitution is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. Judiciai review is not an appeal but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The Court sits in judgment oniy on the correctness of the decision-making process and not on the correctness of the decision itself." 6) The petitioner has failed to establish before the SDO that the fourth child of the respondent No. 1 was born after 26.01.2001 . Accordingly, the application of the petitloner to deciare eiection of the respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch on the ground that the Sarpanch was disquaiified under the provislons of Section 36 (1 )(m) of the Act, 1993, was rightiy dismissed. 7) It is weti settied principte of iaw that will of peopie, expressed through eiection, cannot be set aside on a vague and flimsy ground, as is made in the instant case, except in cases of gross vioiation of norms, ruies, regulations and statutor/ provisions. 2008(9)3cc 161 .aissawait, <5<'"»<i^<it f &^..' ^7 c? } 8) There is no error in the impugned order warranting interference. Thus, this petition is devoid of merit, and as such the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu ;y