^>'i^K-- . ^•i^3 :.-••"•..^•^P-" c - '«*» ^ \.' ^- -..i3-"" &^' IN THE HIGHCQUIfTOFLJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0. /^2- OF PETITIONER / Jayram, S/o Shri Duryodhan @ Dukalu, Aged about 38 years, R/o Kasdol, P.S. Tamnar, Tah- Gharghoda, Distt Raigarh (CG). RESPONDENTS Versus 1. S. D. O. Revenue (Specified OfGcer) Gharghoda, Distt Raigarh /2. Assistant Retiiming OfiGcer, For the election of Gram Panchyat, . Kasdol, Block Tamnar, Tah. Gharghoda, Distt Raigarh (CG) ^ 3. Rukman, S/o Neelanchal, Aged about 70 years, R/o Kasdol, P.S. Tamnar, Tah- Gharghoda, Distt Raigarh (CG) o^ ^\^1 ^V)p' ^4. Tejram, S/o Kalindar, Aged about €^' 45 years, R/o Kasdol, P.S. Tamnar, Tah- Gharghoda, Distt Raigarh (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 &227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Ut) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 172 of 2006 Petitioner Jairain Versus Respondents S.D.0. Revenue (Specified OfiScei) Gbai^hoda & others. Single Bench ; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnlhotri. Shri B.D. Guru, couii.sel for the petitioner. Smt. Anju Ahiija, Depuly Govemiaent Advocate with Shri Paakaj Shrivaslava, Panel lawyer for the respondents No. l and 2/Statc. Shn Sunil Sahu, counsel for the respondent No. 3. None for fhe respondent No. 4. ORAL ORDER (8(h March, 2006) 1. The present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, impiigns the order dated 2.1.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by fhe respondent No. l. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order on the groiuid fhat out of 80 baUot papers, 63 batlot papers were counted, which were iised for casttag votes. 3. Lcamed couiisel for the petitioner submits that unused baUot papers were not counted aad as such it creates doiibts as to whether the baUot papers were properly used or not. The Speci&ed OfBcer/respondent No. 1, in. lus order dated 2.1.2006, has recorded that oiit of total 80 ballot papei^, 63 baUot papers were used for casting votes ia Ward No. 9 ofthe Grain Panchayat, Kashdol and 17 ballot papers were unused. On that basis, the Specified Officer, caine to fhe conclusion that fhe petitioner Jau-ain and Riikman (respondent No. 3) have obtauied equal votes and the result be declared by lot as provided under Rule 24 of fhe Madhya Pradesh @ Pauchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices aad Disqualification for Meiabership) Rules, 1995. 4. By order dated 17.1.2006, the respondent No. 1 and 2 •were direGted to keep unused baUots rcady for nispection ofthe Court. 5. On 6,3.2006, the respondents No. 1 and 2 produced used as weU as iinused ballot papers in regard to Ward No. 9 of the Grain Paachayat, Kasdol in. panch election held on 15.1,2005. The Registrar (Judicial) was directed by order dated 6.3.2006 to recount all fhe batlot papers used for the purpose of castiag votes as weU as iinused baUot papers of Ward No. 9 of the Gram Pa-nchayat, Kasdol in presence of fhe counsel for the parties and ofGcers. 6. The Registrar (Judicial) has recounted fhe baUot papers as produced by the respondents No. 1 and 2 in sealed covers on 6.3.2006 at 5 o'clocte ia the evening in presence of fhe counsel for fhe parties and the respondents No. 1 and 2 ofiBcers. The reports reads as undcr ; "Unused ballot papers were counted. On couating of unused baUot papers, it caiue to 16 only. Packet of used baBot papers in sealed packet was opened and counted. On coiuiting fhe used baUot papers, it was found fhat 32 baUot papers in a biuidle niarked with fhe seal prescribed for voting against fhe nanie of Rukhinan were counted. Only 31 ballot papers were inarked by the seal prescribed for voting. 1 batlot paper was unniarked. Another bundle containiug 31 ballot papei^ niarked with the seal prescnbed for voting agaiast the uame of Jayrain were counted. AU fhe 31 batlot papei-s found to have been inarked with the paper seal prescribed for voting. Thus, total nuinber of baUot papers used aad unused were 79 in number, Vl Used batlot papers sealed in separate envelope, uniised ballot papeis sealed in separate envelope and n11 ofher papers relating to Panch Election of Gram. Panchayat Kasdol, sealed in one envelope, are kept in safe custody" The Registiar (Judicial) silbmitfed his report on 7.3.2006, in view of fhe report submitted by fhe Registrar (Judicial), it appears fhat the order dated 2.1.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by fhe respondent No. l is not on the basis of actual recounting, but on conjecture and guess work. 7. For fhe reasons stated above, the iinpugned order dated 2.1.2006 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The niatter is reinitted back to fhe respondent No. 1 along with a copy of fhe report subaiitted by fhe Registrar (Judicial) dated 7.3.2006 for consideriag the dispute in accordaiice wifh law aad decide the same withia a period of two weeks from fhe date ofi^ceipt/pioduction ofa copy ofthis orier. 8. The respondents No. 1 and 2 niay collect fhe ballot papers, which were prodliced in sealed covers, froin the Registrar (Judicial). 9. The writ petition is accordingly atlowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- S.K. Agnihotri Judge Bablu