^^^^' ^' o^s •c^. (er^> IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR ^C.G.) W.P.mNO. '^o^P /2010 Puranlal Chandra, S/o- Shri Dayaluram Chandra, Aged about 43 years, R/o- Village-Jetha, P.O.-Lawsara, Tehsil - Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER VERSUS .1.... „ / 1. Jeevanlal Bareth, S/o- Shri Lacchu Bareth, Aged about 44 years, 2. Nawdhadas Mahant (Diwan), Shri Ramprasad, Aged about - Not known to the petitioner, Both are resident ofVillage-Jetha, Tehsil-Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 3. Rupa Bai Sidar, W/o- Shri Hetram, R/o- Bhadrakali, P.0.- Lawsara, Tehsil-Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G. 4. Returning Officer, Janpad Panchayat-Sakti, Tehsil-Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G. -5. Presiding Officer, Polling Booth No. 184, 185, 186, 187, Gram Panchayat- Jetha, Janpad Panchayat-Sakti, Tehsil-Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa, C.G. i. Sub Divisional Officer(Revenue), Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa, C.G. RESPONDENTS life j^ 8 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE ^ { CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.5640 OF.2010 PETITIONER Puranlal Chandra RESPONDENTS Versus Jeevanlal Bareth & Others (Writ Petition under Article226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.K. Dewangan, Advocate forthe respondent No.1. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 18th day of November, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Officer i.e. Election Tribunal without following statutory provisions of law, vide the impugned order dated 31-7-2010 (Annexure P/1) has decided and dismissed the election petition filed by the petitioner, in respect of election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jetha, wherein the respondent No.1 was declared as returned candidate, without framing the issues and recording evidence ofwitnesses. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submit that no issues were framed nor any witnesses have been examined by the Election Tribunal before deciding the election petition, finally and the statutory procedural requirement has not been complied with. 4. This Court in Pan/atia v. Padmini & Others and Shyam Ratan v. Siyaram & Others2 held that no election petition can be decided without framing issues. 1 2005 (2) CGLJ 335 2W.P. No.4270 of2005 (decided on 19-11-2008) ^ y "^ ^ 6. Gowri Again this Court in Balaram Rathore v. State of Chhattisga} Others3 after considering various provisions held as under: "9. In the case on hand, there is a material denial of the proposition, as affirmed by the applicant before the election tribunal. Thus, framing of issues and examination of witnesses is necessary before passing the order. The impugned order passed by the election tribunal, it appears to have been passed without complying with the substantial procedure as provided under the provisions oflaw". In view of foregoing, the impugned order dated 31-7-2010 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Election Tribunal to restore in its original file and decide the case, in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. It is expected that the election petition may be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 'W.P.(C) No.3573 of 2010 (decided on 31-08-2010)