c^ \^^ ^ / ^ J/ .? ^v -"^f .^sy ^'/^7 '/4W W.P.C.NO. $^2— Dujraj^i Rawat S/o Bhaduram. Yadav ,aged about 45 years, R/o village- Kushiyari, Police Station, Kukdur, Tahsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS 1.^ Bahadur Soni S/o Jagdish Prasad Soni, aged about 61 years, R/o village- Neur, Police Station, Kukdur, Tahsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Uday Rara Padwar, R/o village- Neur, 3. Galirard R/o village-Neur 4. Titara R/o village-Mahidabra 5. Mahadeo Jagnath R/o village- Neur 6. Libhurain R/o village- Neur 7. Siindra Shiv charan R/o village- Neur 8. Santosh R/o village- Neur Respondent No.l to 8 all Police Station Kukdur, Tahsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.), 9. Shri C.K. Koraxnte, Depyty Engineer Sutiya Project, Sahaspur Lohara, Pithasin Adhikari, Polling, Booth No.9, Dal No.4.5, Gram Panchayat- Neur 10. Shri Sheshnarayan Sharn-ia, Deputy Engineer, Siitiya Project, Sahaspiir Lohara, Pithasin Adhikari, Polling Boot-h No.AO, Dal No.50, Grain Panchayat- Neur - 11. Shri Ram Gopal Netam, Banpal, Saliaspur ^ T^'i^'l^] a csiT't A /^lTi^-TGT"i T^^i11"i"!~; CT T^f^ot^'S 1-/U1J.CU. Ct^ 1: ItllCtiSlll jT^'Ll.i.ti-ES.Ci.i l^ 1. U-l-Ji-JAl^ i^UULll. i.11, Dal No.55, Gram Panchayat- Neur 2 /^•«.&H61 12. 'M.K.-Bhoi, Tahsildar a, Returning riya, Distt. Kabirdham (C-G.). 13. Sub Divisional Officer Kabirdham (C.G.). Pandariya Distt. T] €^s ^••i \ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPU^ S.B. : HON'BLESHRLMAN!NDRA_MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J, PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.fCtNo.562/2011 Dujram Rawat Versus Bahadur Soni 85 Ors. Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia Appearance: Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon31.01.2011) Heard on admission. ^ 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders and proceedings drawn ^"&y the Election Tribunal/Sub Divisional Officer in the matter of election petition filed by respondent No.l under Section 122 of C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that on 13th January, 2011, when the case was listed for recording evidence of the petitioner/respondent in the election petition, for some reasons, which according to the petitioner constituted sufficient reasons, the evidence could not be adduced and the Election Tribunal closed fhe defence on that day. Thereafter, when the case was listed on 18th January, 2011, the Election Tribunal did not 'gEtfS?5F3at SWF?i*flriLByun^^ ,!].„ -c- aq .ifeiu SB, ^psu.isj 3?TB^ pue uoi^OTidd^ s^udo-tddB aAoiu o^ jsuopi^sd aq^ JQJ usdo aq ppiOM ^T 'J3A8MOH "aouB^sui ^sjg -^o ^jnoQ v SB ^.osdsB siLp O^UT ja^us ^ou p^noM 'Bipui jo uopn^suo3 91-R jo 2,SS spT^tV -ispi-in uopoipsunf gmspjaxs snqA ^JnoQ siq^ 'sjojajaqj, •sasssu^iA aoaujap pva\ o~^ ajnirej siq JQJ 'S.W3 ji 'asnao jo ^ouapgjns o^ pjegaj q^TM ^osdsB aq; uo pjeaq sq ^ou pinoo jsuoi^ad 3V^ '^JnoQ sii-o sjojsq 'pssop SBM sousjap siq qoiqA Xq japjo pres aq^ ^sure§B ^Cpsuisj ^UB o^. asjnoosj a?[B^ ^ou pTp jsuoi^ad sqi sy •s^uauinSjB puy joj psxy a^Bp sq^ 'TT05'T'8T uo pajapisuoo aq o^ aureo uopBoi{ddB ^Bq^ ^nq 'souajsp aip. pv3\ o^ mTq SUTMO^ joj uoi^Bondd^ ire SAOUI pip jauoi^psd sqj, •.ouoi^psd av^ jo 9ou3j9p aip pasop iBunquj, aq^ '^uasq^ psureiaa-i jauortpad aq^ 'TIOZ'T'ST uo usqM fev^ si jsuoiipsd SLO. Aq psig TIOZ'T'ST P^V3p uopB3i{ddB pue sguipssoo-td sq^ THOJJ puy i ^qM "S •Tioe-T'eT uo iBunquj, av^ ajojaq paonpojd aq ^ou p{noo aouspTAa 3Vft qoiqA o^ snp jsuop.pad 3Lp joj ssnBO ^uaioyjns STB/A sJSLp. ^Bq^ s^Tuiqns jaq^jnj SH "diqspjeq SABJ§ Jsjjns ABUI sq 'aouspiAa §inonppB jo Atiun^-ioddo jsdo-id ps^irejg ^ou si sq JT pire a^pipLreo psujn^aj ST jauottT^.ad av^ vs^ s^iuiqns jauoi^ad aq^ joj psunoo paiLresq ••^ •SuTjeaq jo 3~pep jaiiJBa ai-p. uo pasop uaaq ApBs-[{B saq aousjap o^ ^qSu s;jauoi^pad sq^ ^q^ uoT^B-tapisuoo sq^ uo 'aouspiAa pi33\ o^ uiiq SuiMO^ye joj uopBOTidda s^jauoi^p.sd ai.p japisuoo ^ gs^sa^ -z- /^^. "%. 1 '-SSSW^i; { %. - V J ¥• .!? .''? ^' •^saa^^"' ..:- "'<-;i;-us^.: ^._^ '^ ,;-w» ^,, , "assl 1 ^. ^.. . .-^.^' - 3 - available to him under the law against the order of the Election Tribunal, closing defnece of the petitioner. 6. In case such application is filed by the petitioner, the Tribunal shall decide the same in accordance with law, keeping in view the provision contained in Rule 11 of the C.G. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices & Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, which provides that subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shall be enquired into by the specified officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits. 7. With the aforesaid observations, fhe petition is finally disposed off. 8. Certified copy today. Sd/'- MamHdra Mohan ShrwasEavg Judge Praveen