^.t*°: p(E®' ^.....••<^.^v VY^'?S<3^3^ i\'^'\"<v-.V^::'-'"" ^} d.---" INTHE rH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDlCATWItE At BILASPUR fC.G.) W.P.^ONO. (VAI^ /2010 Shasthi Kumari, W/o- Shri Yuvraj Chandra, Aged about 32 years, R/o- Village-Hardidih, Tehsil-Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Presently working as Sarpanch Gram Panchayat-Thakurpali, Tehsil - Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Shivkumari, W/o- Shri Laxminarayan Yadav, Aged- Not known to the Petitioner, Caste- Rawat, R/o- Village- Semaradih, Tehsil - Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ambika, W/o- Shri Premkumar Shriwas, Aged- Not known to the Petitioner, R/o- Thakurpali, 3. Ghurain Bai, W/o- Shri Khemraj Maitri, Aged - Not known to the Petitioner, R/o- Thakurpali, 4. Janki Bai, W/o- Shri Thansingh, Aged - Not known to the Petitioner, R/o- Thakurpali 5. Malti Bai, W/o- Shri Gopal Nishad, Aged - Not known to the Petitioner, R/o- Thakurpali, 6. Mohan Bai, W/o- Shri Maniram, - Aged - Not known to the Petitioner, R/o- Thakurpali, 7. Savitri Bai, W/o- Shri Dorilal Maitri, Aged - Not known to the Petitioner, R/o- Thakurpali, 'i5'-\i *%.' iRespondent No. 2 to 7 R/o- Tehsil-Dabhra, IDistt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. '\ ® 8. Rampyare Ajgalle, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Singhra, Presiding Officer, Polling Booth No. 134, 9. Ghanshyam Urao, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary School-Adbhar, Presiding Officer, Polling Booth No. 135, 10. Puspendra Dubey, Shiksha Karmi Grade-1, Govt. Higher Secondary School-Aadil, Presiding Officer, Polling Booth No. 136, 11. Returning Officer (Panchayat), Dabhra, ^ Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgwarh (R^ffr^^ , f.^o \\ c?^') 12. Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue), Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, C.G. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.4016 OF 2010 PETITIONER Shasthi Kumari RESPONDENTS Versus Shivkumari & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.K. Patel, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 25th day of November, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisipnal Officer i.e. Election Tribunal without following statutory provisions of law, vide the impugned order dated 22-7-2010 (Annexure P/1) has decided and allowed the election petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein, in respect of election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Thakurpali, without framing the issues and recording evidence ofwitnesses. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submit that no issues were framed nor any witnesses have been examined by the Election Tribunal before deciding the election petition, finally and the statutory procedural requirement has not been complied with. 4. This Court in Parvatia v. Padmini & Others and Shyam Ratan v. Siyaram & Others held that no election petition can be decided without framing issues. 5. Again this Court in Balaram Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others after considering various provisions held as under: 1 2005 (2) CGLJ 335 2 W.P. No.4270 of 2005 (decided on 19-11-2008) 3 W.P.(C) No.3573 of 2010 (decided on 31-08-2010) •*^ ^f^tl '••sSai-is Gowri "9. In the case on hand, there is a material denial of the proposition, as affirmed by the applicant before the election tribunal. Thus, framing of issues and examination of witnesses is necessa/y before passing the order. The impugned order passed by the election tribunal, it appears to have been passed without complying with the substantial procedure as provided under the provisions oflaw". In view of foregoing, the impugned order dated 22-7-2010 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Election Tribunal to restore in its original file and decide the case, in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. It is expected that the election petition may be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge