^r^ PETITIONER: NON-APPLICANT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No.3249/3006 (1) VIDYA RATAN BHASIN Aged 58 years, S/o Late Shri ChuTinilal Bhasia, Mayor -Muiucipal Corporation, Bbilai, Resident of MIG-19, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Tah. & Distt. : Durg (C.G.). RESPONDEN'T: (PETITIONERl RESPONDENT N08. (2t TO (9) ! NON-APPLICAKT NOS. (2) TO (9). Versus m (2) (3) (4) (5) ^ (7) (8) BADRUDDIN QURESHI, Aged 56 years, S/o Shri Nizamuddiu Qureshi, Resident of Bungalow no. 6, 32 Bungalows, Bhilai N^ar, Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.). B.R. DADSENA, aged 45 years, S/o Shri Bodhan Lal, Occupation : Service, R/o Ram Nagar, Mulrtidham, Blulai. Tah. & Distt. Dui^ (C.G.). 'rTTTQT DAIl/T UADOAT 1 \JL/^3f. i\nlvl iir^I\J-r"lL(. n refs.^1 C;n ^r.an-rw (AgC-U. OU ^ CCU. O S/o Late Shri Dhoolkhon, Occupation: Labour, R/o Qr. No. 4A, Servant Quarter, Street no. : 20, Sector-8, Bhilai Nagar, Tah. & Distt. Dwg (C.G.). BRIJ MOHAN SINGH, s^ed 46 years, S/o Shri Gopal Siagh, Occupation Business, R/o Dussehara Ground, Shaati Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tah. & Distt. Diu-g (C.G.). RAMASHRAY, aged 55 years, S/o Late Shri Ramdev Venna, Occupation: Labour ControUer, Rfo Qr. No. 7B, Street no. 42, Sector-7, Bhilai Nagar, Tah. & Distt. Dui^ (C.G.). VIKKY SHARMA, alias HARE KRISHNA SHARMA, Aged 38 years, S/o Late Shri Bhaiyalal Sharma, Occupation Trausporter, R/o MIG- 2/2615, Housiag Board Colony, KaUash Na^ar, Bhilai, Tah & Distt. Durg (C.G.). VIJAY GEDAM, svged 43 years, S/o Late Shri Raiaauuj Gedam, Occupatiou : Labour, R/o Camp-l, Pragati Ni^ar, Ward-21, Bhflai, Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.). Dr. L.R. SAHU, alias LATEL SAHU, aged 48 years, S/o Late Shri Manrakhan Sahu, Occupation Doctor, R/o Behiad Uttam TaBdes, Strcet No. 2, Zone-1, Sector-11, Khursipar, -£-- BhiIaiTah. & Distt. Duxg. (C.G.). (9) SHRI AMRIT KHALCO, Addl. CoUector aad Returaing OfBcer, Municipal Corporation, Bhflai Distaict Office/CoUectomte, Durg, Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.). PETmON UNDBR ARTICLB 226^AND 22^ OF THE CQNS'nTUTION OF INDIA. (SB .-Hoa'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Satyawaa Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Sltri Ravi Datta, Advocate for fhe respoudent No. 1, None for the respondents No. 2 to 9. ORAL-ORDER (Passedon 21/07/2010) 1. By this petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 12/5/06 passed by District Judge, Durg in election petition No, 10/06 whereby learaed Distdct Judge has dismissed the petition for disinissal of election petition on the grouad of iacomplete verification of fhe petition. 2. Shri Satyawan Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Datta, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 are heard. 3. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioiier vehemently argued that respondent No. 1/petitioner was uader obligatiou to verify his petition m. terms of Order 6 Rule 15 of the Code of CivU ^/Procedure, 1908, In the present petition, respondent No. 1 has verified his petition fhat aUegation ofPara-1 to 17 ofthe petitiou are true ia his personal knowledge and saiae was not possible for Tiim because the aUegation of Paras- 1 to 17 are related to different aufhorities aad persons which could not be within y- -•A' 6. kuowledge of one person i.e. withia fhe knowledge of respondent No. 1. Leamed counsel for the petitioner furfher argued ttiat in case of iUegality in the verification the election petition would not inaintamable. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner placed reliaace ia fhe matters of Shant Kutiwr Jtdswal v. Nanet Kuntar Patel Ss Others1 and jy. Moidutfctf v. P-^T. Xun/u Mohanuncd and anothtfr2 m which this Court and Apex Court has held that in case of non- compliaace relating to veri&cation ofthe petition, petition is not niaintaiaable and is Uable to be disinissed. On fhe other haad, learaed counsel for ttie respondent No. 1 opposed fhe petition and subinits fhat respondent No. 1 has speci&caUy mentioned fhe fact that aU Paras of the petition is true ia his personal kaowledge tberefore, no auy explanation is required and respondent has coinpUed the provisions of verification. Verification Clause ofpetition reads as foUows:- a-ffoV/'/'/. J •f ^•s^fc^'i ^^ft •vi!^ipict?af ^s-<»ftw/ ^ {•l^ilftlvi 'dT^TT ^ "^m ^tf^'^1 ~^t ipf^'fii 1 ^ vf^r 17 w^ ^ ^spf ^ ft^sft WF'T ^ ^h^l V^t W 7KV f/ 3Rf: 97/^r ^ 9^7 ?7 \1H^^ WfV^ W STW ^M/Wf! g]f ^ SITSf 20/01/2006 ^fiTVri" ' 2005(2)C.G.L.J.211 2 AIR 2000 SC 388 ^I 1i- ['•• \ 7, As per verification, respondent No. l has speci&caUy verified fhe petition on fhe basis of contauis of Para-1 to 17 of the petition are true iu his knowledge. At fhis stage, it is difficult to hold fhat it was unpossible for the respondent No. l fhat he was not haviag knowkdge of all fhe facts and allegations niade ia the election petidon therefore at this stage it could not be iaferred that respondent No. 1 has faUed to verily his petition in accordaace with provisions of Order 6 Rule 15 of the Code of CivU Procedure, 1908 substaatiaUy, I do not find any iUegalily ia the order impugned dismissiug fhe petition for disiuissal of election petition. Cousequenfly, fhis petition is liable to be dismissed aad is bereby dismissed. No order as to costs. — Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge