HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON BLE $PRI JA5DISH BHA LA A9 C J & HON BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA, J Pei-iioners i Respondem's Wri'f Pefifion (PIL) No.291 of 2008 1 Dev Prasad Nishad, 5/0 5hri Halal Nishad, aged abouf 47 years, We. Village Jugani Kalar Tahsil ”‘ndagaon Disi’? Basfari Vasudev Mohaveer', Son of 5hri Mak'nan Lal Mahaveem aged abauf 25 years, R/o village Barkai, Tahsil Kama‘agaan, Désf'r. Basfar' (6.6). Versus 1. Sim-e of Chha-r'risgarh Thraugh :Coiieewr‘, Biiaspur. The Chief Election Commission of India, New Delhi. The Sfafe Elec‘l'ion Officer, Raipur'. In Re: In The maffer- of Keshkai Bye‘eiecfion. Presem : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate wi‘l'h Ms. A.Sengup1'a, counsei for f'ne peiifioners. Shri Vashwan'r Singh $ovemmen‘r Advocate for fhe Sin're/ respondent No 1 arm A S caharwor counsel Tor- respondeni's No 2 o: 3 (Passed on 15* January, 2008) The following oral order of the Court was passed by Hon'ble Jogdish Bholla. Ag. C.J'. In The instan‘r pe‘l‘i‘rion, fhe pefifioners have challenged ‘l’he The eleci'ion has already been noTified by Gaze'l‘fe No-l'ificafion da'red 10.01.2008. ORAL ORDER bye-elecTion of Keshkal. / ‘rhe Government vide / h _Q¢ Ar‘l'icle 329 of ‘rhe Cons‘ri'fufion of India specificaliy bar-s infer-ference by ‘rhe Cour'm in fhe elecfoml mu'h'ers. Ar‘ricle 329 of The Consfifu‘rion of India reads as under : “329. Bar to irrrerference by Cour-1's in dad-oral . ma‘H'ers - Nomifhs‘randing ony‘rhing in fhis Constitution - (a) The vaiidi‘ry of any iaw relafing 1'0 fhe deiimi'm‘rion of cons'riTuencies or fhe ailofmen‘l' of szn'i's to such consi'i'ruencies, made or purporting 1'0 be made , under Ar'ficle 327 or Arficle 328, shall no? be called in quesfion in any courf: (b) no elec‘rion 1'0 ei‘rher House of Parliamenf or ‘ro The House or ei‘rher House of fhe Legisloi'ure of a State shall be called in question excep‘r by an eIecTion , pe‘ri‘rion presen'fed 1'0 such authorify and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law mode by The appropriate LegislaTure. " The quesTion of ‘mainTainabiIiTy of a wriT peTiTion afTe noTificaTion of The elecTion has aiready been TesTed by The Hon’ble Apex CourT in The maTTer of N.P. Punnuswami vs. The Re‘l‘uming Officer, Namakkal ConsTiTuency, Nomakkoi $alem DisT. and ofhers - (AIR 1952 SC - 64); which has been followed in The maTTer of Mohinder singh 6m and anoTher vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & oThers {(1978) 1 5C6 -405 }. Therefore, in The lighT of The above Judgmen‘i's This wriT peTiTion is noT mainTainable. Accordingly, The wriT peTiTion is dismissed as such. Sd/— Sdl— , Acting Chief Justice T.P. Sharma Judge subbu r