c ,ir loy IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 6<^f3 OF 2006 PETITIONER •^, Smt. Sumari Singh Wife of Shri Manmohan Singh, aged about 24 years, Resident of Village Leduwa, Post Tejpur, Block Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS •^ itate of Chhattisgarh, »»' ^•"^^lrouQh'- The Secretary, 'JS"?.-'^'.^"" ..^- .?"""('?'.<''/' ...-••Oepartment of Panchayat and >***" ' y''/ysi^^ Secretary, ^T^" ^w^'" 2. s. ^" \ ^ ^•^•'sT'^'i il, - fca,"' " ".^^y i'wlsl35!aSSSS°~' 5. Social Welfare, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). The District Election Officer cum Collector, Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.). The Upper Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (Taman Singh Sonwani). The Sub Divisional Officer Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). The Returning Officer Panchayat, Assistant Registration Authority, Naib Tahsildar Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). S^i'?:?^%<r;?~^?;is^!3ss^£&i^^%^i!^i%e:^?'::-^:i'3a^"LsftS ;,7"-" s '»'! <y' 6. Vijay Kumar Sahu Son of Shri Ramjatan Sahu, aged about 35 years, Resident of Village Leduwa, Post Tejpur, Block Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). 7. Smt. Shashi Singh Wifeof Shri Suresh Singh, aged about 26 years, Resident of Village Leduwa, Post Tejpur, Block Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND^27"OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA la '•<•' ^ HIGH COURT OR CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WRiT PETITION (0 N0.6843 OF 2006 ^ J PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. SumariSingh Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ashok Kumar Shukia, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn N.N. Roy, Pane! Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 13tn day of September, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Chaiienge in this petition is to the order dated 26/11/2006 (wrongly typed out as 26/10/2006) (Annexure P/11) whereby the order dated 13/11/2006 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (in short 't?e SDO'), Surajpur, District Surguja, in appeal was set aside. 3. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner made an application to the Returning OfHcer (Panchayat) i.e. Tahsildar, Ramanujganj, District Surguja, for enlisting her name as voter in the voters' iist of Viilage Panchayat, Laduwa, District Surguja, after deieting his name from the voters' Sist of Village Panchayat, Govindpur. The Returning Officer rejected the application of the petitioner by order dated 27/09/2006. 4. Being aggrieved, the pefitioner preferred an appeal before the SDO, Surajpur, on 05/10/2006. The appeiiate authority aftsr considering alt the aspects of the matter directed that the name of the petitioner be deieted from the voters' iist of Viilage Panchayat, Govindpur, and her name may be enlisted In the voters' list of Viiiage Panchayat, Laduwa. 5. Thereafter, on an appea! fiied by one Vijay Kumar Sahu before the Coilector on 21/11/2006 (Annexure P/8), the Collector by order dated 26/11/2006 (wrongiy typed out as 26/10/2006) (Annexure P/11) set aside the order dated 13.11.2006 passed by the SDO ig'?Wi^:,~?: ic^^ 'ia.'a.BieiM 7 •V.~s .^OF ./? (Annexure P/5) on the ground that before SDO, it was barred by limitation, under Section 15 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1973. 6. Shri Shukla, learned counse! appearing for the petitioner,submits that there is no provlsion for second appeal and the decision of the appellate authority is final under ths provisions of Rule 12 (5) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nlrvachan Niyam, 1995 (for short "the Nsyam, 1995"). 7. On the question of power of the Collector, asto whether the Collector can entertain the application/appeal against order of SDO, Shri Roy, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent, is siient. However, it is submitted that the appiication fiied before the SDO was not within time. 8. Rule 12 ofthe Niyam, 1995 reads as under: "12. Disposal of claims and objections.- (1) The Registration Officer shall, after holding such summary inquiry into the claims or objections as he thinks fit, record his decision in writing and shali make available on demand copy of such decision to the objector free of charge forthwith. (2) No person shaii be presented by any legal practitioner in any proceeding under this ruie. (3) The Registration Officer shail amend the voters' list in accordance with his decssion. (4) The voters' !ist so amended shait subject to decision in appeat, if any, be final and a copy thereof duiy signsd by fhe Rsgistration Officer shal! be kept in his office and another copy deposited in the office of District Eiection Officer. (5) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Registration OfRcer may prefer an appeal to the Appeilate Authority within five days of such decision. Every appeal shail be in such form as may be preseribed by the Commission and presented to the Appeltate Authority accompanied with a copy of the decision of the Registration Officer. The Appellate Authority, after giving the appeiiate an oppprtunity of hearing and making such enquiry as it deems fit, shall pass suitabie orders expeditiousiy and in the event of the appea! succeeding, direct the Registration Officer to amend the voters' list te give sffect to its decisiQn. The decision of the Appeilate Authority shall be finat: Provided that no amendment shail be carried out in the voters' list according to the decision of the Appellate Authority after the iast ciate and time fixed for making nominations in the notice issued under rule-28 and before the completion of eiection." ^ 10. 11 13. On bare perusal ofthe provisions of Rule 12(4) ofthe Niyam, 1995, it is etear that the voters' list can be amended by the Registration OfRcer after considering all the facts relevant for the same. ]n the case on hand, as according to the petitioner she was resident of Village Panchayat, Laduwa, thus, she made an application accordingly for enlisting his name in the voters' list of Viltage Panchayat, Laduwa and the same was rejected by the Returning Officer, i.e. the Registration Officer. Sub-rule (5) of Ru!e 12 of the Niyam, 1995 provides for an appeal before the Appellate Authority. !n the case on hand, in accordance with provisions of the Niyam, 1995 the SDOis the final appellate authority against the order passed by the Tahsiidar. Accordingiy, appeal was filed before the SDO and the SDO having considered al! the aspects of the matter directed to remove his name from the voters' Sist of Viilage Panchayat, Govindpur. It is further provided in sub-rule (5) that the decision of the appeilate authority shail be final making it clear that there was no scope for filing either a representation or application or appeal before the Coliector. Thus, the question whether it was within time, beyond time, etc. does not anse. The Collector, Surguja, without examining the facts of the case, or wlthout having jurisdiction to consider the case, set aside the order dated 13/11/2006 passed by the SDO in an appeal, without assigning reasons in a cryptic and casual manner. If the second appeal v/as not maintainabie before the Coilector, the Collectorhas no occasion to consider the order passed by SDO t»n the ground that the appeat before the SDO was beyond the period of limitation. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the order dated 26/11/2006 (wrongly typed out as 26/10/2006) (Annexure P/11) passed by the Coilector, Surguja is quashed on the ground of being without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order dated 13/11/2006 passed by the SDO is restored. In the result, the writ petition is aliowed. No order asto costs. ashok Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge