^^^'".S:gW^S'3!''S'SSS' <f -^ vsr.W'i smii Bfc^^1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.t WRIT PETITION fd N0. ~:^'^3 QE2006 PETITIONER f- M '' Manmohan Singh Son of Shri Roopnath Singh, aged about 45 , 16b- ^•w ^^•t- RESPONDENTS c"fwi^y'. years' Resident of Village Leduwa, •¥ ./-• ^ <0~ ft^ 4, Block Ramanujnagar, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). The District Election Officer cum Collector, Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.). The Upper Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (Taman Singh Sonwani). The Sub Divisional Officer Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). The Returning Officer Panchayat, Assistant Registration Authority, Naib Tahsildar Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). !"tE ^s^ss^ '", ^ 6. Vijay Kumar Sahu Son of Shri Ramjatan Sahu, aged about 35 years, Resident of Village Leduwa, Block Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 22T6F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .^ —:^L HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (C) N0.7123 OF 2006 Manmohan Singh Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 12th day ofAugust, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 26/11/2006 (wrongly typed out as 26/10/2006) (Annexure P/10) whereby the order dated 13/11/2006 (Annexure P/5) passed bythe Sub Divisional Officer (in short "the SDO"), Surajpur, Distnct Surguja, in appeal was set aside. 3. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner made an application to the Returning Officer (Panchayat) i.e. Tahsildar, Ramanujganj, District Surguja, for enlisting his name as voter in the voters' list of Village Panchayat, Laduwa, District Surguja, after deleting his name from the voters' list of Village Panchayat, Govindpur. The Returning Officer rejected the application ofthe petitioner by order dated 27/09/2006. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the SDO, Surajpur, on 05/10/2006. The appellate authority after considering all the aspects of the matter directed that the name of the petitioner be deleted from the voters' list of Village Panchayat, Govindpur, and his name may be enlisted in the voters' list of Village Panchayat, Laduwa. 5. Thereafter, on an appeal filed by one Vijay Kumar Sahu before the Collector on 21/11/2006 (Annexure P/8), the Collector by order dated 26/11/2006 (wrongly typed out as 26/10/2006) (Annexure P/10) set aside the order passed by the SDO (Annexure P/7) on l.'^aagi, j ^ ^^^/ ^'l.'.^t^ the ground that before SDO, it was barred by limitation, under Section 15 ofthe Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1973. 6. Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that there is no provision for second appeal and the decision of the appellate authority isfinal under the provisions of Rule 12 (5) of the Chhattisgarh PanchayatNlrvachan Niyam,1995 (for short "the Niyam, 1995"). 7. On the question of power of the Collector, asto whether the Collector can entertain the application/appeal against order of SDO, Shri Roy, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent, is silent. However, it is submitted that the application filed before the SDO was not within time. 8. Rule12 ofthe Niyam, 1995reads as under: "12. Disposal of claims and objections.- (1) The Registration Officer shall, after holding such summary inquiry into the claims or objections as he thinks fit, record his decision in writingand shall make available on demand copy of such decision to the objector free ofchargeforthwith. (2) No person shall be presented by any legal practitionerin any proceeding underthis rule. (3) The Registration Officer shall amend the voters' list in accordance with his decision. (4) The voters' list so amended shall subject to decision in appeal, if any, be final and a copy thereof duly signed by the Registration Officer shall be kept in his office and another copy deposited in the office of District Election Officer. (5) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Registration Officer may preferan appeal to the Appellate Authority within five days of such decision. Every appeal shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Commission and presented to the Appellate Authority accompanied with a copy of the decision of the Registration Officer. The Appellate Authority, after giving the appellate an opportunity of hearing and making such enquiry as it deems fit, shall pass suitable orders expeditiously and in the event of the appeal succeeding, direct the Registration Officer to amend the voters' list to give effect to its decision. The decision of the Appellate Authority shall be final: Provided that no amendment shall be carried out in the voters' list according to the decision of the Appellate Authority after the last date and time fixed for makingnominations in the notice issued under rule-28 and before the completion of election." r •-V '-<- ' ~'%£ 9. On bare perusal of the provisions of Rule 12(4) of the Niyam, 1995, it is clear that the voters' list can be amended by the Registration Officer after considering all the facts relevant for the same. 10. In the case on hand, as according to the petitioner he was resident of Village Panchayat, Laduwa, thus, he made an application accordingly for enlisting his name in the voters' list of Village Panchayat, Laduwa and the same was rejected by the Returning Officer, i.e. the Registration Officer. 11. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 of the Niyam, 1995 provides for an appeal . before the Appellate Authority. In the case on hand, in accordance with provisions of the Niyam, 1995 fhe SDO is the final appellate authority against the order passed by the Tahsildar. Accordingly, appeal was filed before the SDO and the SDO having considered all fhe aspects of the matter directed to remove his name from fhe voters' list ofVillage Panchayat, Govindpur. It is further provided in sub-rule (5) thatthe decision of the appellate authority shall befinal making it clear that there was no scope for filing either a representation or application or appeal before the Collector. Thus, the question whether it was within time, beyond time, etc. does not anse. 12. The Collector, Surguja, without examining the facts of the case, or without having jurisdiction to consider the case, set aside the order dated 13/11/2006 passedby the SDO in an appeal, without assigning reasons in a cryptic and casual manner. If the second appeal was not maintainable before the Collector, the Collector has no occasion to consider the order passed by SDO on the ground that the appeal before the SDO was beyond the period of limitation. 13. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the order dated 26/11/2006 (Annexure P/10) passed bythe Collector, Surguja is quashed on the ground of being without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order dated 13/11/2006 passed by the SDO is restored. 14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihatri Judge r