!‘—w v ' / w/DQ/ $§§¥§i§i§3 3E§E§E§ IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (c)_No. é‘Hé OF 2010 f PETITIONER : Shifa Nm‘h, wife of Shri Shivendra Nu’rh, age‘d abouf 28 years, residen’r of Kasfuri, Tehsil Jagdalpur', Disfricf Bas’rar‘ (CG) Vs a” REsPONDENTS : 1. S‘m're of Chha’rfisgar‘h, Thrgh The Sub Divisionl Officer (Revenue) Prescibed Officer under The C.G. Panchayaf Raj & Gram Saraj Adhiniyam, 1993, Basfar a’r Jagdalpur‘ (CG) .Kishna Kumari, daugh’rer of Shri ghunm‘h, aged abouf 23 years, residem‘ of TehsH Villae Kosfuri, Jagdalpur, Disict Bas’rar (CG) f 3. Kundomani, daughfer‘ of Shri Sodhuram, aged abouf 4O years, resident of Village KasTuri, Tehsil Jagdalpur, Disfric‘r Basfar (CG) ‘4i Padmani, wife of Khagpa‘ri, [Jagged about 4O years, ‘residenf of Village Kasfuri, ou a / r w 2r Ra g tr HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 67 1 6 of 20 1 0 Shifa Nath. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. AgnihotriLJ. t Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Subhash Yadav, Advocate for the caveator/respondent No. 3. ’ORDER ORAL (Passed on 23' day of November, 2010) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur, i’e. Election Tribunal, without following statutory provisions of law, vide the impugned order dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure P/7) passed in Election Petition No. 3/A-89-A(2l)/2009-10, allowed the election petition filed by the respondent No. 3, and directed for recounting of the votes in respect of election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kasturi, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, wherein the petitioner was declared as returned candidate, without framing the issues \ and recording evidence of witnesses. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submit that the impugned order suffers from deficiency and infirmity on account of the above stated reasons. Thus, the impugned Order may be quashed and further the matter may be remitted back to i r, ‘ the election tribunal for deéi’ding the same in accordance with law, after framing issues and examining witnesses properly . r l \\\ 2 3. This Court in Parvatia v. Padmini & Others] and Shyam Ratan v. Sz‘yaram & Othersz held that no election petition can be decided without framing issues. 4. Again this Court in Balaram Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh & 0thers3 after considering various provisions held as under: “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 necessary 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 of law”. 5. In view of foregoing, the impugned order dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure P/7) 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 as settled by this Court. 6, 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. I 1 2005 (2) CGLJ 335 2 w.P. No.4270 ofzoos (decided on 1941-2008) 3 w.P.(C) No.3573 of2010 (decided on 3 1—03-2010) it