croiioiiTuzis' IN THE HIGH COUET OF JUDICATUHE AT JABALPUR. ^S-ni !. R.F-aF£l;'"ii "4 iS,4,ii,5. ,'»/1| ^. ^^^/ \^^&-fs 4. WRIT PETITION N0_4"1-°<& OF 2000 Sarindar Singh, son of Shri Diwan Chand, aged about 40 years, resident of Villag'e Basna, Tahsil Basna, DistrietMahasamund, M.P. PETITIONER VER S U S. Ashok Kumar Sahu, son of Shri Beharilal Sahu, aged about 42 years, resident of vi'llage Paraskol, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund, M.P;' Dr. Ravi Sunder Sahu, son of Shri Dadhibaman Sahu, resident of Basna, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamunc?, M.P. Ramratan Patel, son of Shri Markande Patel, resident of .Kudekel, Post Sirko, Tahsil Basna, Distrlct Mahasamund, N.P. Sagarchand Patel,so.n of Shri Radheshyam Patel, resident of BarmelaSih, Post Mukel, Tahsil CONTINUED ,,ON PAGEi 'ssit*i''S3 \ ^'sws^\ / ::> n' , f ^f'\ ^'-:"'^^^\ [§"• l^p9 C*\ ^C^ I..B. < Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund, M.P. The Collector, Mahasamupd, Wibit Chunao Adhikari, Zila Panchayat Chunao 1999-2000, Mahasamund, M.P. The Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, M.P. RESPONDENTS PETITION UNDER ARTIGLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS, ORDERS , OR DIRECTIONS. DETAILS OF THE^EiniQEL XI-HC-22 ~SV9 -^Wlc't'T, ®'ci]*)W,ISK 3IlS%S!I Eyfici»<*ti^r a»*-f A. anit^T 'WSK j^£.^.0^5°6.J_ MWW .shiillcB"""""""""" 7WI 2080 07/05/2003 SbriAshish Shrivastava, Slui Awadh Tripathi, cou^iset Ku. A.S. Chouhan, PL for| Head. Though the niatter is Ustel on the prayer of couasel for tb| learued counsel for the parties, Admittedly, the petitione^ had contested the election to th< Mahasaiuuiid in Tvhich thc Subscqucnt thcreto thc pctitic) of5ce of the Vice Chajrman ofl was declared elected. However, by respondent no.l by way pfe.| the M.P. Pauchayat Raj Avain q The xnaia ground on i| chaUenged, is fhat Ward No. elected. was reserved for <<ti4f<'i41'-t WKK 4 ft<A <('»i«$i< ^'SlPWSII^I :ounsel for fhe petitioner. for the respondent tiacState. fi for orders on M.W.P.No. 329/2002 petitioner and with the consent of ple niatter is beiag disposed of. (, the respondent no.l, 2, 3 and 4 ^ office of Member of Zfla Pauehayat, pctitioncr was dcclarcd clccted. (ucr coiitestcd thc clcction for thc Zila Pauchayat, Mahasamund and his electionwas caUed in question |ection petition under Section 122 of }ram Swaraj Adhiniyani, 1993. ^Tluch fhe petitioner^s election is |0 from. which the petitioner was Otli^r Backward Class category and as [W^^ v XI.HC-22 siiiBW R-l).^i aifi WK 1. '3W8WW, »'ni<<iro,Nffiti^ L:'p^ ^?^)1 •mRWW(NR""""""""""""""""r'"Wt, 200 on was opposed oa fbe ground that ^, the OBC an3 a caste certificate was the petitioiier does not belong tcj be set aside. Tbe election pefit^on the petitioner was a laeinber of| ffled iu support of his case. I^owever, in view of fhe Goverument Notification dated 12/12/ 1988 and Tribal Wetfare. GoVerruneiit aUowed and the petitioner's ele< Zila Paachayat, Mahasamund powers under Rule 29 of tbe Petitlons Corrupt Practices ani Ridcs, 1995, thc pctitioncr clcction for a pcriod of six ycars. Leamed counsel for the fiading as regards setting asi^ ground that he does not bel chaUenges his disquaHfication fc Tribunal in exercise of powers It may be Hientioned member of fhe OBC in view '<(il'«f^ril-lITWW ^ ftl^t ifti«ip< i?8itosn^f fhat class, his electk>n wass liable to • ed ssued by fhe Department of SC, ST , of M.P. Uie election petitk>n was tion to the office of fhe Meinber of wfas annulled. Further ia exercise of M^dhya Pradesh Panchayat (Election Disqualification for Meiubershlp) w^s dcbarrcd froni contestuig aay petitioner does not challeiige the |e 'fhe petitioner's election On fhe l{)ng to fb.e OBC. He, however, (r six years im.posed on him by the udder Rule 29 ofthe Rules of1995. thfet fhe petitioner claimed to be a If M.P. Goveniment Gazette dated t<n%^s 3 y.^p 3g-HC-22 aiK!w ?<-ti«ti-aa§??r -^^w^ -^ '3^? 5^W@% ®*Bw:<s,Iwiwy >0^ Cu ^ I- atIiltPB wSctl'""""•—~" ———• — 'g^ a^i^g Sfe 8/2/ 1985 and Entry no.80 wh4eof nieinber of tlie OBC. However, soiaetiTne ia ttie vear 1988. A was a Sikh Harijaa was ffled. Qbjection raised by respondent no| Leamed counsel'for the resi 1^4t^%^ ^@1:1^*I^T^^^ ^i^^l ^'^F^sffi^g' Sikfa Harijan was treated as a ^bis eiitty was subsequently deleted :rtificate statiag that the petitioner In fhis view of the matter, oral 1 was rejected. bondent no. 1 very fairlv stated fhat since election of the petitioner ^?as aot caUed in question on ttie *he i;round thdb ^etitioner iadulgeA in comipt practice, his disquaUficatioii fi-om contesting ptrther election under Rule 29 of Rules, 1995 is not proper aud to|this extent be does not pppose the said pctition. Ija. fhc abovc vicw of fhc petitioner to be disqualified for tl^.-Member-sliip of Paachayat for a period af six years uuder Rule 201 Parties to bear^their own cos Certified copy as per rules. niattcr, tlic ordcr dcclaring thc is hereby quasbed. To the exten.t iudicated above, the petition is a^owed. Consequeiitly, M.W.P, Nos. 329/2002, 868/2003, 1136/20(^3 and I.A.Nos. 2898/2002 and 3519/2003 alsostand dispos-ed oij s. Sd/- P.C. Naik Judge 1^^^^% vv <'f ?'.'r ^. ^' N %' ^r^,w,-s?ra^,!FPT:'?3;fte5 F^: 1