IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) w. P. (C) No. €34? of 2010 OP / PETITIONER : VERSUS RESPONDENT : 1. Pardeshi, S/o Ghasiram, aged about 4O years, Caste—Sarthi, R/ o Village-Dataud, Gram Panchayat Dataud, Police Station 85 / Tahsil—Jaijaipur, District-Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) The Sub—Divisional Officer (ReV6nue) / Specified Officer, Sakti, District—Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) Ghasiram, aged about 4O years, S/o Asharam, Caste—Lahare (Election Petitioner) Manharanlal, aged about 4O years, S/o Ram Bharos Lahare, 1‘ Dadulal, S/o about 35 years, v Panchram, S/o Jhaduram, aged about 3O years, Caste—Satnami, S/o Shivnandan, Bhojrarn Satnami, Jawahar, S/o Pataitram, aged about 32 years, Caste—Satnarni, Sahadev, S/o Itwari, aged about 45 years, Caste-Satnami /2. Sonsai, aged Respondent no. 2 to 8 are R/o Village—Dataud, Gram Panchayat Dataud, Police Station 85 Tahsil—J aij aipur, Distriét—Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) Presiding Officer, Pooling Booth no. 20, ; / Wt r Presiding Officer, Pooling Booth no. 21 3/11. Presiding Officer, Pooling Booth no. 22 /12. Presiding Officer, Pooling Booth no. 23 /13. Presiding Officer, Pooling Booth no. 24 Respondent no. 9 to 13 through the Election Officer/Returning Officer, Block—Jaij aipur, District—Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE NSTITUTION OF INDIA CO HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ”WRIT‘PETITION (C) N0. 6753 of 2010 PETITIONER Pardeshi : VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The Sub-Divisional Officer & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE ONSTITUTION OF INDIA Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri g Judge SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State! ORDER ORAL (Passed on 24‘ day of November, 2010). By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.1/Election Tribunal to proceed the election petition, in accordance with provisions of Rules 11 & 12 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Nzy'am, 1995 "). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made an application to decide the election petition filed by the respondent No.2 stating clearly that the Tribunal should proceed with the hearing of the matter, in accordance with the Rule 11 & 12 ofthe Niyam, 1995. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that despite specific request, the Tribunal is proceeding without framing issues. 4. Be that as it may, since the matter has not been concluded and it is expected that Tribunal would conduct the case in accordance with law. It is no necessary to interfere with at this stage, being premature. x 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself, as premature. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds available to him before the Election Tribunal.