^ ^. ^ ^ "a^ liSBrf'''^"' ^asSSS^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUE Writ Petition <C) No._J,919_of2QQ7 Petitioner Smt. Asha Devi Mahilange, W/o Shri Heraman Mahilange, age 24 years, Sarpanh of Grain Panchayat Misda, Tah. Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Panchayat Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Smt. Geeta Bai, W/o Daras Ram Satnami, aged about 48 yrs, R/o Misda Tah. Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa. Retuming Officer, Gram Panchayat Misda, Janpad Panchayat Navagarh, Distt. Janjgir- Champa. Presiding Officer, Gram Panchayat, Misda, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Ms Meena Shastri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 85 2. Shri A. K. Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ^- JUDGEMNT AND ORDER (Passed on this _/Z^)ay of Febmaiy, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure P/4), passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Prescribe Authority (Election Petition), Janjgir, District - Janjgir Champa in Revenue Case No. 11/A- 89/21/04-05. The brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner (Srat. Asha Devi Mahilange) are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Misda, Janpad Panchayat ^- ^€3e^ ~^^—:< 'T' ....^ ") Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa in the election held on 15.1.2005. According to the birth certificate (Annexure P/l), the date of birth of the petitioner is 15.6.1983 and according to the identity card, issued by the election coinmission of India (Annexure P/2), as on 1.1.2003, the petitioner was 20 years old. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 (Smt. Geeta Bai) filed an election petition against the petitioner for declaration of her election on the post of Sarpanch as null and void and to declare the election petitioner as elected, on three counts, which reads as under:- " 1. 'dnf'itfl'il ^. 1 ^ 3PT^ uf-tf RrRT 15.6.82 ^dTqT t urt ^OT ^ 3RR2T f | \i<xf'i<)l41 ^W 1 ^ uF^TRlsft 1.1.1986 ?W ff^R d'(fct?1 ^ff ^^TI? f?T^T ^' 19 ^ 14 f^-T t l 2 <.iCTl'itfl41 ^. 1 ^ uf-^ Rl^T ^OT ^?T f^TT t RRI^ ^Rq^ IK ^ ftp? 'ii'H'tfl an^ tfrqr ^ gf<? SIT uir^ i 3. Br.ir.q^T2Rr ffvl grfSrfippT ^ yiciyi'i ^ ST^IR 21 ?cf ^ V^ 3IT3 Vf Ur^Din ^Rtf^ IR ^ ^t7?T ^ t 1 " The petitioner filed her reply to the election petition and denied the allegations made in election petition. Apart from the petitioner and the respondent No.3, suc other candidates also y participated in the election. The petitioner raised an specific objection that fhe election petition was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules, 1995^ as the other contesting candidates were not impleaded as party-respondents in the election petition. It was also stated in the objection that the election petitioner has also ^"isi;c?i^.:Sg^^3i®¥? 6. 7. filed a petition on the similar facts and grounds, claiming similar relief, under the provisions of Section 36 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'Adhiniyma,1993'). Learned Sub Divisional Officer and Prescribe Authority after recording the evidence of the witnesses and examining the records, by impugned order dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure P/4) allowed the election petition. Thus, the petitioner has filed this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no compliance of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1995, the petitioner was major when she contested the election of Sarpanch and the respondent No.3 had also filed a petition under Section 36 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, seeking similar relief. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, per contra, would submit that the application under Section 36 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 was filed by one Vinod Kumar Shukla on 13.7.2005, not by the respondent No.3. Learned counsel, relying on a decision of this Court in Suiya Prakash Vs. Ramratan 8s othrs7, would further submit that this petition has becorae infructuous as the by-election for the post of Sarpanch was held on 19.6.2007 and Smt. Geeta Bai (present Respondent No.3) has been elected on the post ofSarpanch. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. It is apparent that even if the petitioner succeeds in this petition, the petitioner cannotjoin the office as Sarpanch. 8. 9. Thakur During pendency of this petition the election had already taken place and new Sarpanch has been elected, thus, the subsequent election cannot be set aside in this petition. This Court, in Surya Prakash (supra), while considering the identical facts and quesdon of law, relying on the decisions in N. P. Ponnuswanii v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Manakkal, Salem Dist., and others1, Mohindar Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Conitnissioner, New Delhi and others2, Indrajit Barua and others v. Election Coinniission of India and others3 , Manda Jagannath v. K. S. Rathnam and others4, Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Managenient Coniniittee and others5 and Gurdeep Singh Dhillon v. Satpal and others6, held that since the election had already taken place, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be considered in this petition and no substantive relief of restoring the petitioner on the post of Sarpanch can be granted. In view of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. , , Sdy. , Satish K.Agnihotri . Judge u ^/ 'AIR(39)1952SC64 2 (1978) 1 SCC 405 3 AIR 1986 SC 103 "(2004) 7 SCC 492 s (2006) 8 SCC 487 6 (2006) 10 SCC 616 7 (2009) 1MPHT 60 (CG) 'l