IN THE HIQH COURT QF CHHATnSGAKH : BILASPUR Petitioner Wnt Petition No^3641 pf 2005 Ma.nharan LaJa, S/o Shri Latebau Lal Qond, Aged about 32 years, caadidate for the post of Sarpaach for the ViU^e Panchayat Aiueri - Akbari, Post - Dagori, Tahsfl - Bitha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Shii Indal Das, S/o°Shri Ramdas Satnami, ViUage Aineri - Akbari, Post- Dagori, Elected Sarpanch, ViUage Paachayat Ameri- Akban, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Shri Amardas, S/o Shri Kanglu Sataami, ViUage'- Ameri Akbari, Post - Dagori, TahsM - Billia, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Shri Om Prakash, S/o Shn Radhe Shyam Dliobi, Village - Ameri Akbari, Post- Dagori, TahsU - Bilfaa, District - Bflaspur (C.G.) Shri Itwari, S/o Slui Babulal Sataami, Village - Ameri Akbari, Post - Dagori, Tahsfl Bilha, District - Biiaspur. Shri Ganpat, S/o Shri Miikuada Yadav, Vulage - Ameri Akbaii, Post- D^ori, Tahsil BUia, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Shri Cliaiteam, S/o Shri Paucbkod Satoami, R/o Udgau, Post- Dagori, Caadidate for &e post ofSarpanch. Shri Faguva, S/o Shri Jevrakbau. Satnami, R/o Udgan, Post- Dagouri, Candidate for the post ofSarpanch. Shri Rajesh Kuinar, S/o Slui Lakliau Sataami, R/o Udgaa, Post- Dagouri, Caadidate for the post ofSarpaach. Shri Shiv Ftasad, S/o Shri Ram Prasad Sataami, Village - Udgaa, Post- Dagori, Caadidate for the post ofSarpaach. Shri Seetaram, S/o Shri Maukram Ck>ad, ViUage - Aiueri Akbari, Post- Dagori, Caadidate for fhe post ofSarpaach. AU belongs to TahsU- Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Returaiug Ofiicer, Vffl^e Pauchayat- Aiaeri Akban, Tahsil- Bilha, District - Bilaspiu- (C.G.). The Sub Divisional Officer (Revcnue), Bflaspur (C.G.) C7/> WRIT P&T1TON UNDEKAKnCLE 226/227 OE^^T^ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1~' ^SSIB^ y ^"''^k '^ ?' &. 1S 'Si, '9ssss^ % ^^ ^ e^. -2- (SB: Hon'ble ShriSatish K. Agnitiotad., Shri Rajee" Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakiir, Paael Lawyer tbr the respondents No. 1 1 and 12. 2. OKDER ~ fPassed on fhis 3rd Dav ofNovember, 20081 The petitioner, betug aggneved by ffae order dated 30.4.^005 passed by the Sub Divisional Ofiicer (Kevenue), Biiaspur m Case No. 32/A-89 (21)/Q4-05 Villag.e - Ameri Akban, 'i'ahsU- BiUia (MauharatLlat Vs. Indaldas & othersj, iias filed this petition. The brief tacts, in nutshell, are that ttie petiuoner was a caadidate for election to the post of Sarpaach, ViUage Panchayat Aiaeri AKbari, Tahsil- Bitha, District Bilaspur. f!ae petitioner lost fhe election, as the respondent No.l, fhe elected Sarpanch, got 299 votes aad fhe petitioner could secure 286 votes. Thereattex-, the petitioner preterred election petition under the provisions 01 the Cliuattisgarh Paachayats (Election Petitions, Con-upt Practices aad DisQuaUficatioa for MembersJup) Rules, 1995 (tbr short 'the Rutes, 1995') betbre the Sub Divisionat Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur. Adinittedly, the petitioner failed to coaiply with the .^requireinent under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has to attest eacti aad every copy under bis slgnature to be a true copy of the petition. The petitioner did not attest all the copies, accoinpaaying the election petifaon. Rule 8 provides tbr dismissal ofthe petition it n O <^ 4. 5. ttie provisions ot Kule 3 or Rule 4 or Kule 7 ot ttie Rules, 1995 have not beeu coinpJied with. Proviso to Rule 8 provides that no petition shall be disniissed under Uie Kule without givtug fhe election petitioner aa opportunily of being heard. The respondent No.l liled a prpliminary objection seefcmg disinissal of the eJection petition on the ground that the petitioner has tailed to coniply with the niaudatoiy provisious ot Rule 3 ol the Riilea, 1995. The petitioner tiled his response, thus, the proviso to Rule 8 was conipJied with. The petitioiier has not inade aay atteinpt to either file additional copies, duly attested by tfae petitioner or sought tiiae to attest ttie copies filed with. the ejection petition. The Sub Divisional Officer, after Iiaviag recorded that the petitioner has tailed to coinply wifh the provisions of Rllle 3(2) ol fhe Rules, 1995, aisinissed the petition under the provisions ofRule 8 of Uie Rules, 1995. Havm.g heatd leamed counsel appearing fbr tfae parties and having perused the documents appended thereto, I have not found auy intirmity or illegality iu the iinpugned order. Thus, the petition is disuussed. — ---- ' i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge I'iiakur