^':^^^1 IBIB iBl BBIB / ^ •aje®iaEiaaa,VNawi 'laHW{;®usSEigag6fflSMi3,@iaia!iffiigug^^Bi88Bl^iaBa^^sBam?(^ @BttE15B!MffBBBSSi2!SBii@@SEiBSBiBBB8SBBBBg~®®SiI^I^ |ili|||iSC!asKi,ijiHai| s:« S'RaM ,i|iSHfNSt:lBil?^ ja|B'iMS SHB^IMS:;s»^i%Sa'^c^^^ MaiinEBaHSSBffl@SiaEaSBBffilS8ffilB^igKMSB&%1^ Sgzz/^^aaBi^a^E^iaBMiai^Ei.u.ad^raAi:1 |:i1i:|||MiN(Si||giag|SNi%|g|Ha,lEi^ l^;';Ni.i^U:';-'::'^-'I^r:^:.^"^l ll11?l;:!ri^:^^T;^?:^^'J':J':'i7 ;^^.-.;:..^':-l:^!?^--'':;-:';;i^i!l:^';'J::;.''' ?.^:::^'^;:'::'" ;^^.'.:^ ;ii^;;i'v::::;:^"g' di^HB^iL(as^G[^,.;:,Y ^iil!;!'i3% ^^%CTSM3S:'P^/:!^®0',:'.9tnPaiio§:':^'-'' ij||^Xj^3J3^|;;3^:,j.BJ^Ojqj,l^';-0-3':go|:'^ ('O'S)) t:s-intft^SJ^iB:t3-K>^gfc A |||:[:,3L[^.'L[gndj^.'uQ STUim03i^^OI:t03@':a^E|@f gi •Q'Qjna:s^iig,;usiei'Bj:pu3ci::', 'iyl-.i.^CiEqOlIBa ;. 1 ^dirBJ--. ^ UO]Ct33@' ^ ^E4Btlau'BcI.' ;; ^::^;'^.;^;;^';;:':.^;.'J3org0:guiimz:(3y.:3tv,,:[-;[f sa.NaBNOdsaa |S?ilj!SJ^|a^A'^ ^L •-»; •.:•* ('Q'Q) '^^Ha;'^G]E,B.i^Hatii|;}:; .^@| ^SSSC^S8\ !"M%;: ;:.!B^^,:iN^^3U^'T}i^ II 3§Bn^i'o^.'(^)i^I^a^ 3i'u.t^.tHsn.s? i o/g;'SjB3^Qe^q^psgB;'^:j^c>^^ aaNOij.uad isoTCdO^<^?-a iaioiiM,g%i^jtt| ^a.as^iaii,i,v^Havs>si,Ki,»H]B^4G^,i,a.fflQg»H®iHaiu,m IU ~t~ ^sn^r^Tls'nw 'a^tr sn^r wmT :(.-- '3ST "4|4il<')4, «til(1ii(o,'Iq(Y)l'fclll,< (^ ? 65^ o^r~ •w^r 1q5w (1pi3?sti) TOIIW^fOTCT^I 12.1.200S Shri Rajesli Pandey, couii^ellQTthepetifeaier. ^ Shri Prajnbd Vcmia, Addj|t30iial Adwoeate Gciieral for respoiidcnt Nos. 1 to 3. Leamed counsel for the fhe returti. Time te allowed. IX>d]atig to thc ·aiges.cy Sarpaacli of Gram Paricliayal 15.1.2005 argumentsheard on By this appUcatioii fhe operation of order dated 31 respondentNo.l whefcby thc Sarpanch of Graiaj Panchayati ground that shc dbes not belonj Learaed coiiasel for ftie lligsppndents seeks aweek time to flfe catcgdiy atSr.No.5 vidc -piG the petitioner's caste cei'tifieat^ iailo this; the Retlinuag Of&cer srafepih i-ii^rtT"? reizt zi^R^ '^'srfrosi^r that thc clcctions| &r fhe ppst t)f Bacliarwar is goiaig to be Iield on IM.W.P, NQ.05/2Q05: ipetitioner Uas prayed for stayiiig the 12.2004 (AanexutC P-1) passed by ticti.tioner's uomiaation for fhc post of Bacharwar Iias been rejected on the t to.Scheduled Tnbes. t)eulioner subinitted ihat the petitiQaer bekings to Bliamra easte axid s4ine is incjfaded in fhe Sclieduled'IlriBes adential order puhHshed ia M.P. Re- orgaiuzation Act, 2000 mScfaci^ule-IV.Qmii^SirtjbCT'^bimttedfEiat is Aanfixure P-2 aiid wifhout tookia fias rejected the petition.er's noiiunafcioii paper on tbe non-esdsteitt ao^ irTelevaol;gK5uads^ subniittcd that evcn fhe nq4uiiatioii papers o^ isunilarljr sit!ua|lcd; persoris namelv Eebhram Blisjria S»;.MoiKitFam Bharia submitted jfisa- various ofiK-es ofPanchayats yavp^Beea accepted coasidenaig-ftiemisis' chcdulod Tribooi ThorefoiiB, th ° iTnriTfl"'"l:"T'rlpT' i<a 1'ia'hlR tii1\K Ntnyeti. s .,» -(-• XI-HG—78 a.n^i ^i Ivnv 'ginati^rwtiw '^ ..t£ ^S|';^raM9,'QMI<-l' ;R.|(ril'y^-i. s^t TRq7(^d(^q) 'Rwwnftgsn^ii Ou. the o&er hand learri< State argued thaf in view of th^ of rcsporidcnt Nd.3 aad in vic4r the Constitution of India smc therefore, mtei-ference zm.der ^i aad properreinedy available tei" HaviaR Iieard leanled co' to the judgmcnt of t&c Hon'blic CommissioB otlndia Tteou^ reported iu JT 2000 (9^ 8C judgments in Ron-ttuswanii^ case were considered aad liele c&se afad Constitutioii which is in pj Constitiition cannot toe presseij of the writ petition iihder Artj court to subserves the prbgr^ coinpleting or ih furth.eratice ofl thc coiiiplcfioB. of elcctisB. agaiastthe decision of stafutoi^ or arbitraiy cxercise ofpdwefSt] o'bstnict or delay fhe process available, where the assistan&ti correct or sinoothcn thc remove tbe obstacfes tliercui. In the figUt of abovc Iaw| : Ath"lr l^71iTr^TJR fase. if we 3ctc wnwN •mwit'^f fe^ ^fSn^ ^aifwsti^i' •: ;d Additional Adwocaie Geneial for fhe preliaunarx, objections filed on behalf bf tlie provisions Of Article 243(0) of '^ ttie election process is tn currencv, [}ticle 226 by this Court is not calted for ]flie petitiQner is to file election. petition. juisel for Ihe parties aad havulg regard Apcx Court ia thc matter ofElection Secretary Vs. .teAok Kumar aad ors 129 ni which fhe Constitutiori. Beaches and also in Mohinder Suigh Gills that the bar under Article 329 of the :rimateria of Araclc 243(0) of thc into service agamst fhe entertainment lcle 226 of the Constitution w&erc the ;ss 6f election, aa.ytlujug d.one towards fhe election proceeduigs and facilitates whcrc judicial icvicw is cxcTeiseii bodies such as oii a case ofmaia fidfc ahd wliere tUe order does tu^ taternxpt, ifelection. The judicial iiiterveution is of court Ilas been souglit fiir laerely to of-fhc clsGtion procccaiags, to pr^gress laicl 3cwn bv tl Hon'6fet A^ex Ccmrt in ik ioLtbi fbe pieSent ease tfie ipetitiaaer [-HC—78 ai^^nfipiw '?Esff ^H^T ^•4 '?F=f ^rraiCTRr; ^nws, l»<cii-yij,< sn&?(1ragT(' TraiW(flOT;3ii^t favour by ffae Naib TehsUdar,'*) order pubUshed ia the M.P. Rei| wi?f4i-i tipraf ^•is^<fa<^i{ %38Sg3ii^r " wbile filiug her iiOmination eat^goriicall^r nierHaoned in the nomina.tion papers that she belongs to B^iariya caste, therefore, she belongs to Schcdiiled Tiibcs; Castc ccrt^cate to this cffcct was issucd in Iicr Pendra Road and in the presidential ^- ... !. . . '• . ._ .. .''_:~.; ..•,:.'- rgamzatioa Act, 2000 ia Selieduled-IV at Sr.No-5 Bharya caste faas/b^en sUown to be iiicluded in Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, the order i^upugaed bas beeri passed totaUy on irrelcvant & aon-existent grou4ds and ia an arliitrary niatuicr aiid as has been hcld by tfae Hon'bl^ Apcx Court ia tfae matter of Ashok Kuiaar's case (Supra) tliat acc vested in everycitizeniiaplies is to coiut wMch is an important right E|ie existeace ofthe ppwer ofthe court to render justice aceording to la basic strtietUTC of tfac Constitut(oh, In view of the above, th respondent cone«med is not nientioned above, is whoUy unj existent grounds and arliitrarv is schedulcd to bc hcld on t; name of the petitioner is iaclu^ with law then it ffl not going toj the elecuoa process. As such^ ia which the interfererice by| Constitution is 'warTaated. No.06/2005) is altowed aod tt[ of^-he unpugncd" onler dated] iv and tfae power ofjudicial review is preltminary objectioui-. raised by tfae lustainable, as the uapugned order, as ustified;based. on fhe irreleyant &• non- Tfae elections for the post bf Sarpaacli 1.1.2005, timc is stiU thcic and iftlic ed ia the contestajits list iu acconl:aace sreate any interruptiou or Kindraiice iu I am ofthe opinion that it is a fit:ease this Court under^ Arti&te 226 of fhe teGQTdu^ly, thc applicationJ(M.WF.P. is directed.fhat t&e effect aitd. ogeiayon 29.12^2004 (AnnexureP-l)passed'by respondent No.l ^ShaU reinaui stayed arid re^ondents ai^i^ to v^ XI-HG—78 ^^'^n^iTrm', BFgRTO®', isfi'iiy^ WWW^'qW""""""""""""""""""""""""" ®n^t•^w (Tpi=p(s[q) S^B^'fe'IHi' wir 311^1 %I|N? ^ ^ 11 Roshaxi/- ,^- IK ^m lrTilii 'RtnwHfefan^f iacliide tlae .ttaxne of the petition aad proceed wifh fhe election iu .> Snview offEisoraer,}.A.N Certffled copy as p8r, rutes. sr ia the list of Contesting caiididates ftccordance with law. ljoi.26/2005 staads disposed of. M*<l"i<l't*lll)Ctl'A' fest ifSR^R ^siRrq.sn^i ; •V Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ~~n luiA.i.l!,!,