$§NG€$ 8 W¥§ @ v W IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH. WRIT PETITION c NORM E l. [2011 I PETITONER : r ASHOK KUMAR JANGADE I RESPONDENT \I ”v «WM 0" Age about 43 Years S/o Shrl z Feraha Ram Jangade R/o Vlllage- .. ”w... Dondekala Ward No 17 Ponce Station —— Dharsinva, Tahsil — Dsitt: Raipur (C.G.) ’4— VERsus . / 1 State Of Chhattlsgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat &Rural Development D K S t} Bhavan Ralpur (C G) 3' 2 The Sub DIVISIonaI Officer (Revenue) and the PreSIdIng Officer Panchayat Raj Adhlnlyam Ralpur (C G ) 3 Chandra Shekhar Verma Age 'I About 40 Years S/o Shrl Rewaram Verma R/o Village — Dondekala, Police Station w Dharsinva, Tahsil & District— Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ” 6 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : UR WRITIPETITION (C) NO.2160 OF 2011 PETITIONER/ Ashok Kumar Jangade RESPONDENT Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER (Pa‘Esed on this 11‘ day of October, 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 18~3—2011 (Annexure ~— P/7) passed by the respondent No.2 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order Vll‘ Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC") read with the provisions of Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short “the Adhiniyam, 1993”) & Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practice & Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short “the Rules, 1995“) has been rejected. The facts, in brief, for adjudication of the case, are that the petitioner is an elected UpnSarpanch and his election was called in question by hling election petition by the tespondent No.3; Initially, the said election petition was allowed by order dated 21-6-2010. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in WP (227) No.3456 of 2010, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 13-8-2010, quashing the order dated 21-6-2010 and the Election ‘ ’ Tribunal was directed to consider and decide the case afresh in accordance with law and on iis own merits. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for reiection of the election petition on the ground that there was non-compliance of sub—rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1995. After hearing the parties on the said application, by order dated 19-11-2010, the respondent N02 observed that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC shall be decided at the time of final disposal of election petition. The order dated 19—11-2010 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in WP (227) No.7681 of 2010. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 11-2-2011 (Annexure — P/5) and quashed the order dated 1941-2010. Further, the respondent No.2 was directed to dispose of the application under Order Vll Rule 11 of the CPC at first, and then, if required, to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. Subsequently, by impugned order dated 18—3—2011 (Annexure — P/7) the application under Order Vll Rule 11 of the CPC has been dismissed without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. Thus, this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without giving sufficient and cogent reasons. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.3 has admitted that he has not complied with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1995, therefore, as per the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules, 1995 the election petition is liable to be dismissed. ' On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the respondent No.2 has passed the order without considering all the aspects of the matter and passed the order in a cavalier manner. The respondent No.2 has not at all censidered the principles of law laid 10. There sha” be no order asto costs. Gowri SATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge 2 1 2011 2007 (I) (2) MPJR-CG MPHT 58 (CG) 134