@>© HK3H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR Wr'rt ADDeal No.3^ of 2010 APPELLANT Respondent Bhuneshwari Sahu, W/o Netram Sahu, aged about 27 years, R/o Vill. & Post Konari, Pollce Statfon & Tah. Palari. District Ratpur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: Petitioner 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11 Shanta Bai, W/o Sjyaram Patel, aged about 33 years, R/o Viii. & Post Konari, Poltee Station & Tah. Palari, District Raipur (CG) Kartik Bai, W/o Bishambhar Rajak, aged about 35 years, Ganesiya, W/@ Gajendra Patet, aged about 25 years Champa Bai, Wd/o Amar Das Manikpuri, aged about 53 years Firtin Bal, W/o Hira Das Manikpuri, aged about 53 years Bjmte Bai, W/o Ramesh Patel, aged about 34 years Birjaha Bai, W/o Uma^iankar Kannauje, aged about 35 years Rukmani, W/o Bhagwatf Yadu, aged about 28 years s. No.2 to 8 are R/o V(H. & Po^ Konari, Pdtee St^ion & Tah, Palart, Raipur (CG) Shanti Bal, W/o SWv Charan Yadav, aged about 25 years. R/o Vill. Sirsahi, Post Konari Poltee Station and Tah. Paiari. Distrfot Raipur (CG) D.S. Dhruv Teacher at Qovt. Hr. Sec. School Rj^la Police Statjon & Tah. Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (CG) [Prescribed oricer booth no.199] B.P. Verma, Upper Dwisjon Teacher High School, Marcte Tahsit Baloda Bazar (CG) [Prescribed OfficerBoothNo.199-A] .1 ^ Q>\ \>^' '-^?^^^" 12. 13. 14. 15. Padum Kumar Banjare, Upper Dlvisjon Teacher High Schoot Marda, Tah. Batoda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (CG) [Prescribed Offioer boothNo.200] S.K. Gupta, Shikshatearml Class-l, at Govt' Higher Secondary Sctool Arjuni. Police Station and Tah. Bhatapara. Distt. Raipur (CG) [Prescribed OfTicer booth N0.2003 C.M. Dhrittahra, Shikshatearmi Class-1, Govt' Higher Secondary School, Arjuni Police Station & Tah. Bhatapara. District Ralpyr (CG) [Prescribed Officer booth No.201] Etection Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Patari. Distt. [CG] Present: Shri Deepak Jain, counsel for the appetlant. Divisjon Bench: Hon'bte Shrl Dhtrendra Mishra& Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrafcar. JJ, JUDGMENT (20-9-2010) The foltowing judgment of the Court vreis clelivered by Dhironctra Mishra, J. l Respondent No.1 is elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Konarl. The appellant herein fited an electton petition against electlon of respondent N@.1 under Section 122 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayet Rej Aclhiniyam, 1993 before e Sub Divisional Officer (Electton Tribuna^ on 15th February, 2010 and prayed for recounting of votes of the particular polling booth. The Election Trlbunal, after regjstering the petition, cRreoted issuance of notfoe to the respondents and fixed the matter for their reply on 15th March, 2010. The petitioner (respondent No.1 therejn) moved an appliGation under Ryte 3 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Blection Petittons, Corru^ Practtces and Disqualificatjon from Membershtp) Rules; 1905 (for short the Rules, 1995*) \ ;! •-.•.sa% | "^ , ^ g^ for djsmissal of the election petttion at the threshold on the ground that copy suppliedto the petitioner was not duly attested and stgned oneaeh page and requjsjte affidavit has also not been presented and on further ground that security amountwss not deposited as required imder Rule 7 of the Rutes, 1995 at the time of pFesentation of the electton petition. Tfw Trlbianal djsmissed the said applteatton by observing that the security deposit has been made within limitatton period after presentation of the elecUon petftion and as such, It is not violative of Rute 7 of the Rules, 199S and the petttion was duiy verified and signed oneach page. 2. Respondent No.1 fded a wrrt petitlon agalnst the above order of the Sub Divisional Officer. Leamed Shigle Judge has allowed th®wr»t petition, quashed the order of the Sub DMsional Officw (Election Tribunal) and the election petition filed bcfore the Election Tribynat has been dismjseed for want of compliance of the provisions of Rule 7 ofthe Rules, 199S. 3 Learned counsel for the appeltant submitted that eteetion pettticm could noit be dismissed on the ground of non deposit of requisite sum, as security deposit for cost of the petitjon at the tjme of presentation of election petNicm, partteularly, when security cost has been deposltecl wfthin a period of limitation prescribed for fiting etectton petjtton. As ttw authority hearing election petttlon had not taken cognizance beforethe deposit of security cost, non depostt of security cost is not a fetal itefect. Rellance is placed in the matter of Ravi ThaNur Vs. Shiv Shanteir Patel and Others {1997 (2) M.P.L.J. 649). 4. In the above cited judgment, it appears that after presentationof tt»eelection petjtion, the SDO hearing election petition took cognizance of the case on(y 0,3 after security cost was deposited wffihtn limltation and in these circumstanGee, it has been held that election petitlon could not be dismissed onthe ground of non-depQsJt of securrty cost. 5; However, in the instant case, from perusel of the order sheet dafed 15-2- 2010, it is clear that Election Tribunal took cognizance ofthe elecNQn petitipn and dlrected registration of the ease and iseuance of notice to the respondents and fixed the case for reply ofthe respondents on 15t^ R4arch, 2010, though election petition ought to have been di^nissed on 15-2-2010 for non comptiance of mandatory provisions of Rute 7 ofthe Rules, 1995. 6 After going through the Impugned order, we are of the opinton that leamed Single Judge relylng upon the various judgments of the Supreme Court has rightly held that the Election Tribunal took cognizance of the election petltlon by Sssuing notice to the respondents on 15-2-2010 and no ground is available to the appellant, 7 ^The appeal is accordihgly dismlssed Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Bar^e