G^9 ^<r^—. €^1 W1 7. INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR (C.G.} WRIT PETITION fC.VNO. <-9S~n.OF 2010 PETITIONER 1 pir RESPONDENTS ^y .^w «w ^'.^ ^•y./ ^••'^jy t^^^^:' T)hanush Ram, S/o Bisru Ram, Caste Satnami, aged about years, R/o Ward No. 19, Village Panchayat Palari, Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Narottam, S/o Jaichand Sahu, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Palari, Ward No. 5 Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) Presiding Officer, (Village Panchayat Palari Upsarpanch Election) Shri C.H. Bandey (Assistant Development Extension Officer), Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) Secretary, Village Panchayat Palari, (Shri Devlal Saarva, Panchayat Karmi) Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) Returning Officer (Panchayat Election), Gurur, Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh/ Through: the Collector, Durg (C.G.) ^B^^'^^^g^.^^^^ ^. 6. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balod,District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETLTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .^.&^^ ^. '^stv€/^ '^.A^^ PETITIONER RESPONDENTS HtGH COURT QF CHHATTSSGA^l: BILASPUR WRIT PETITSON (C) N0.525T OF 2010 Dhanush Ram Versus Narottam & Others 0/Vrit Petition under Artide 226 of the Constitution of India) Singl®Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.P.Sahu,Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of respondente No. 1 to3.- 1. 2. 4. ORDER(QRAL) (Passed pn this 08tnday of Ju<y. 201 T) Heard learned counsel appearing for tiie parties. Shri Sahu, tearned coynsel appearing for the petitloner submits that the eiection tribunei has proceeded to pass the final order withwt framing of issues, whjch is contrary tp well settlwl provisions of iaw, as being not in accordance with ttie provisions of the Chhattjsgarh (Etectjon Petitions CorrupA Practice and Disqyalification for Membership) Rules, 1995. Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appeaaring for th®respondents No.4 & 5 submits that tiere is no dispute ^iat the eiection tribunal has dectded the election petttion not in accordanee with the rec|uirec( substantial proyisjons of law. Shri Sahu relies on a decisions of thls Court rendered in Parvatia v. Pacfrn/nf & Off?e/s? and Shysffn Ratan v. Siyafam & Oiher^ in support of his submission that no election pe^ition can l>e ^ecided without framing issues and examining the wltnesses prodsiced byttie parties. 12005(2)CGLJ335 ^ 2WPNb.'4270of2005 (decided on19-11-20Q8) ^ -^ \ ';£.'-:\ Having regard to tt»efacte situation of tlie case and conslderhig the submissionsmaeje hereinabove, as e prindple @f law is well settled that no election petition can be decided finally without framing prop@r issues and e>Kimining witnesses, if produced by the paEties, the impugned order dated 04.08.2010 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. Tlie matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to restore in Bs originat file and decide the case in accordance with law. In view of the foregoing, it is expedient and proper to diredtthe election tribunal to consider and decide the case afresh, ta accordancewith law and on tts own mertts, aseariy aspossibte. Accordingly, e pet'rtion is allowed to the above extent;. No order asto oosts. Sd7- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge