@Eséhw magi (/{l‘ 1% 5) BEFORE THE Hou'BLE HIGH COURT 9F CHHATTI§GARu AT BILASpuR - WRIT PETITION c No. @U OF 2010 /, Meena W/o Shivnath Chandra , Aged about ia year's‘ R/o Village — Tendumudi, Tehsil Dabhra, Distri'ct Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Election Petitioner) VERSUS RESLPONDENTS:- 1., Samarin Bai W/o Rohit Kumar Satnami R/o Village — Tendumudi, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Defendant No.1) 2; PresidingOfficer, PETITIONER Voting Center No. 144, Village — Tendumudi, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ’ (Defendant No.2) . Returning Officer (Panchayat) Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Defendant No.3) \g 4. Specified Officer/ Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 6214 of2010 PE'ITI‘IONER ; Meéna. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Samarin Bai & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARJ‘ICLEm226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. AgnihotrkJ. Present: Shn‘ Hernant Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Abhijit Sarkar, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ‘ I ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 15 day ofJuly, 2011) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Election Tribunal has dismissed the election petition ofthe petitioner vide order dated 13.09.2010 (Annexure P/l) without handing issues and without amnding proper opportunity to the parties to adduce evidences, documents, thus, the impugwd order is bad in law. Shri Kesharwani relies on a decisions of this Comt rendered in Parvatia v. Padmim’ & Othersl and Shyam Ratan v. Szyaram & 0thers2 in support of his submission that no election petition can be decided without ii‘aming issues and examining the Witnesses produced by the parties. .2. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well‘ as respondent No.1, fairly submit that the impugned order suffers hom deficiency and iniinnity on account ofthe above stated reasons. Thus, the impugied order may be quashed and thither the matter may be remitted back to the election tribunal for deciding the same in accordance with law atter framing issues and examining witnesses properly. 3. In View of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the K parties, the impugned order dated 13.09.2010 (Annexure P/l) i quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the election petition in accordance with law, ‘on its own merits and perspective, as expeditiously as possible. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed to the above extent with no order asto costs. Sd/— 7 Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ‘ 2005 (2) ecu 335 2 wp No.427o or zoos (decided on 19.1 1.2003) s