PETITIONER <" f'- ( IN THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR(C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) N0. <7-?<rOF 2010 p •• .py\^K? ^^^ ^'/^yw^ ^w Bt-' .<? ,<'•> .&•' / Tularam Sahu, S/o Late Shri Jeevrakhanlal Sahu,aged about 36 years, R/o Salkhan, Tahsil- Nawagarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /-A /-2. ^ 3. /-4. 5. Bharat Kashyap.S/o Dharam Kashyap, aged aboutSO years,R/o Kinan Salkhan, Tahsil-Nawagarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Amarnath, aged about 26 years, S/o Late Kholbahra Kashyap Ganpat, aged about 60 years, S/o Late BudalKashyap Jawaharlal, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Neelkanth Kenwat Dilip, aged aboutSO years, S/o Late Ramswaroop Kashyap, ^ 6. Chandrahas, aged about 26 years, S/o Ramanand Kashyap ^7. Dulaurin Bai Kashyap, aged about 28 years, W/o Kartikram -8. Pili Bai,aged about32years, W/o Kaushal Prasad Kashyap ^-9. Panchram Karsh, aged about50 years, S/o Late Jhaduram, ^10. Bharatlal, aged about 50 years, S/o Late Ramadhar Kashyap, ^11. Mahettarlat, aged about 45 years, S/o Suklal Kashyap, ^12. Mansaram, aged about 37 years, S/o Late Samarulal Sahis, 13. Ramkrishna, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Radheshyam Kashyap, nf ss- rf^^ ^;:^ ^/".^T^^ ^^ v^: ^i •'iT-''~< l' .^i -^ i ^ ^ ^\ l:^A64-SAy E1^3S^S' /i^. Ramnath, aged about 58 years,S/o LateBabulal, Bharadwaj ^15. Ramphal.aged about 37 years, S/o Late Darasram Bharadwaj, 16. Lakhanlal, aged about 58 years, S/o Chhabilal Kashyap, 17. Laxman Prasad, aged about 45 years,S/o LateAnokhelal Kashyap ^18. Laxmi Prasad, aged about 47 years, S/o Late Jojelal Kashyap ^19. Shankarlal Bharadwaj, aged about 25 years, S/o Angadlal, 20. Suresh, aged about42years,S/o Late KanhaiyalalYadav, '21. Sanju Kashyap, aged about 26 years, S/o Dr. Umendram Kashyap, -22. Devi Prasad, aged about40years, S/o Kumar Prasad Pandey, 23. Varun Pandey, aged about 30 years, S/o Late Kedar Pandey, Respondent no. 2 to 23 are R/o Kinan Salkhan, Tahsil-Nawagarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 24. V.K. Lakda, Tahsildar, Nawagarh, Returning Officer, Nawagarh, Tahsil-Nawagarh, District-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) , 25. R.S. Patel, Specified Officer Voting Pole No. 234, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Upper Division Teacher, Govemment Middle School Bargaon, Tahsil-Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) a IU M ^26. N.K. Khare, Presiding Officer, Voting Pole No. 230, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Gramin Krishi Vikas Adhikari, Kodabhatha, Tahsil- Pamgarh, Disthct-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) /27. S.D. Panariya, Project Officer, Voting Pole No. 231, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Sub-Engineer, Aayakat, Sub-Division 5, Akaltara, Tahsil-Akaltara, District-Janjgir- Champa(C.G.) ^ ii-i ^€^^ss- '4^'J 28. D.C. Sahu, Presiding Officer, Voting Pole No. 232, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Upper Dlvision Teacher, Government Middle School Bundela, Tahsil-Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 29. Ganeshram Patle, Presiding Officer, Voting Pole No. 233, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Upper Division Teacher, Middle School, Pachri, Tahsil-Pamgarh, District-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) -^30. V.P. Verma, Presiding Officer, Voting Pole No. 235, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Sub-Engineer, Hasdev Aayakat, Sub-Division No. 5, Akaltara, Tahsil-Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ^31. Samelal Sahu, Presiding Officer, ; Vdtjng Pole No. 236, Gram Ranchayat Salkhan; Head Master, Goyernment Primary School, Sabsiriya Dera, Chorbhatthi, Tahsjl- Pamgarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ^ 32. Goyindram Kashyap, Presiding Officer, Voting Pole No. 237, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Upper Divisjon Teacher, Middle School, Pakanya (Jhulan), Tahsil-Akaltara, Distnd- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) !.^ ^fsS '^.:}S^ 'iia ilBI IB— v^ sy sfe' /33. H.L. Aditya, Presiding Officer, Voting Pole No. 238, Gram PanchayatSalkhan, Upper Division Teacher, Chandipara, Tahsil- Pamgarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) -34. Mannulal Karsh, Presiding Officer, Voting Pole No. 239, Gram Pahchayat Salkhan, Upper Division Teacher, Government Higher Secondary School, Kirari, Tahsil- Akaltara, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) '35. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) ITahsil-Nawagarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 36. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ^^37. Sushil Clland Shrivastava, Sub- Divisional Officer (Reyenye) Tahsil- Nawagarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) -38. Gram Panehayat Salkhan, through the Secretary, District-Janjgir- Champa(C.G.) ^39. State of Ghhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ' WRITPETITIONUNDERARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. r°':"T i.11 li ii-i I111 ..s ^ v'\ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR WRITPETITIONCO No. 5735 of2010 PETITIONER : Tularam Sahu. .VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Bharat Kashyap <& Others. Present: Shri Prateek Sharma, Adyocate fpr the petitioner. Shri Manoj Paranjge, Advocate fbr the respcmdent No. 1. Shri N.N.Rfiy, PanelLawyer fbrth®Stafe. SUri Patikaj Shrivastava.Advocate fortherespondentNo.36. Shri Y.C.Shanna, Adyocate for the respondentJSfo. 37. WRIT PETITION (0 No. 6583 of2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : Bharat. VERSUS : Tularam & Others. Pi-esent: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, AdvoGate with Shri G.I.Sharan, Advocate fbr fhe petitioner. ShnPrateekShar):tia,Adypcatefbrtherespo:ndentNo. 1. ShriN.N.Roy, ParielLawyefforthe State. WR[T PETITION LINDER AKTIGLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSnTUTIONOPINDIA I ' • • . SB: Hon'ble SlifiJSatisli K..Aen otri^J, ORDER )RAL) (Passed on 01st day of December, 2010) Challenge in both the.wnt petitions are to the order dated 25.08.2010 (Annexure P/l to W.P.(C) No. 6583/2010), and subsequently, theorderspassedon 30.08.201ft (Annexure P/l and P/2 to W.P.(C) No. 5'735/201p), passed by the Election Tribunal i.e. the Sub DivisionalOS5cer(Revenue)Janjgir. The brief facts, urvnlved uiboth the writ petitions are that the petitiorier iri W.P.(G) N6. 5735/201 Q is the election petitioner and .U!' E -,: -.^.r. -f 3. the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6583/2010 is the retum candidate. Boththe petitioners contestedthe election for thepostof Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Salkhan, Tahsil Nawagarh, Disfrict Janjgir Champa. The electioh petitioner filed an election petition challenging the election of the retum candidate. The Election Tribunal, by order dated 26.04.2010, without framing issues directed re-counting of votes in polling booth No. 234 and 236 of Gram Panchayat, SaUdian. ®nthe basis ofre-counting, the election Tribunal declared the election petitioner as elected vide order dated 30.04.2010, holdingelectionofflieretumcandidateonthe post of Sarpanchas void. Thereafter, the return candidafe filed a petition being W.P. (227) 2144/2010. This Court, having considered all the aspects of fhe matter, by order dated 30.06.20^0 (Annexure P/7 to W.P.(C) No. 6583/2010) quashed the impugned orders dated 26.04.2010 and 30.04.2010. Thereafter on receipt ofthe order passed by this Court, the Tribunal, without complying with the order dated 30.06.2010, passed by this Court, maintained its order dated30.04.2010, and passed the impugned order on 25.08.2010 (Aimexure P/14 toW.P.(C)No. 5735/2010) It is submitted by leamed counsel appearing for the parties thaf despite the faet that fhe orders dated26;04.2010 and 30.04.2010 passed by the Tribunal in the matter in dispute were set aside by this Court, theSub Divisional Officer, i.e. the Election Tribunal relying dn the order passed on 30.04.2010 ignored completely the subsequent directions issued by this Court on 30.06.2010 in W.P.(227) 2144/2610. On 28.08.2010, the Election Tribunal, :%»— <.-• 6. 7. directed the Ghief Executive Officer that the charge of SarpanGh should be handed over to the election petitioner. When the mistake was brought to the notice of the Election Tribunal, the Tribunal stayed the operation of the order dated 28.08.2010 yideitsorderdated 30.08.2010. Since there were serious allegations against the Election Tribunal notiee was issuedto him also on 04.10.2010. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), filed the affidavit dated 25,10.2010 tendering his unconditional apology and further stated fhat he could not understand the order passed by this Cdurt. Thus, the Tribunal may be granted opportunity to re-consider the entire case a fresh in the light of the orderdated 30.06.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(227)No. 2144 Of2010. Having regard to the above stated facts, it ap^ears to be just and proper that all the prders passed by the Election Tribunal, after the order dated 30.06.2010, passedbythisCourt, be quashed as all the subsequent orders are passed in violation of the order dated 30.06.2010. SUri Y.C.Sharma, leamed counsel appearing for the Election Tribunal submits that a review petition has been filed against the impugned order which is pending consideration before the Sub Divisional OfBeer. He further submits that the Tribunal is conducting the hearing in a fairand proper manner. When there are allegations against the presiding officer of the Tribunal, it is expected fhaf the Tribunal should be extracareful in considering fhe case as the power is being exercised in the nature «sff"S3, '•""l~s»J!i ^., J. -iiii^ /-"•V -i' Amit of a quasi judicial jurisdiction. Thus, the Tribunal is directed to eoiisider the case of the parties, who were ifi the main Election Petition and decide the review petition, as early as possible, preferably wifHmaperiod ofone month. 9. Learned coimsel appearuig for the parties submit that they would ensure fhat fhe parties and/or their counsels would make themselves available before the Tribunal as aud when the matter is fixed for heai-ing to enable the Tribunal to conclude the hearing expeditiously. ^ 10. In view of the foregoing, all the orders in question passed by the Tribimal after the order dated 30.06.2010 was passed by this Court in W.P(227) No. 2144/2010, are quashed. The first date ofhearing before the Tribunal shall be 6 December, 2010 and thereafter hearing may continue regularly. All the documents are available before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has to consider and pass order in accordance with law and direction as contained in the order dated 30.06.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(227) No. 2144.2010. 11. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the case a fresh as aforestated, as early as possible, preferably within a period one month. 12. Certified copy,tomorrow. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge