uni ui Petitioner WntPstition 1 a34of200S Smt. Shyam Bai, Wte. Ram Dayai, aged about 41 years Caste Satnami, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Piparbhuna, Tehsii Biiaigarh, Oistt. Raipur, R/o. Madhubandkhur Qram Panchayat PiDarbhavna Tshsil Bilaigarh, Distt. rs .'S.j. RaJaa rs ,\s. Vsrsys 1) Jani Ram S/o. Tsei Ram Casts Satnami, Rio. Viilage Wladhubandkhur Viiiage Panchayat Pipar Bhavna Tehsil Biiaigarh Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 2} Ram Kumar S/o. Avadh Ram R/o. Vitiage Pspar Bhavna Tehsii Bilaigarh Dlstt. Raipur. 3) Ghasidar Si'o. Prsm Das, R/'o. Village Tendua, Gram Panchayat,' Piparbhavna Tehsii Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur. 4'i Sanat Kumar S/o. Sonaou Ram FVo. Village Bhavna Tehsi! Bilaigasrh, Distt. ../*; Officer Cum Sub Divisw svenue) B'Saigarh, Dsstt. Ra (C.G). (Writ Petition under Articie 228 of the Constitution of india) i'tsie Pressirt: ShriS.N, Nande, counselfbrthepetitioner. . Shri Sunii Sahu, counsei for ths 'esDondera: No.1. Shri Arvind Dubev, Panei Lawverforthe respondent No.5. (Passea on aw'^v Brief facts, in nutsheil, are that the petitioner herein aiong with for the oost.of Saroanch, i, District Raipur, v/hich respondents No. 1 and 2 contested the el Gram Panchayat Pipar Bhavna, Tehsii 8 was heid on "15-1-2005. Sn the eiecticn, in obiai / •p^ - ; .L- 271 votes, whereas respondent No.1 obtained 270 votas, therefore, the petitioner was deciared as elected Sarpanch and a certlficate v/as issued' in favour of the petitioner. Being dlssatisfisd with th®result, respondent No.1 hsrein filed an eiection petition under Section 122 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and notices of the same were issued of which the petitloner herein fijed repiy to the election peiiiion. 2) Leamed counsel aopearing for the 'oe'i specified officer passed order dated 4-5-2005 directing rs-count of vo'tes examining the provisions or law app order was chailenged in this Court in Vtfrit Petiti case. Tlie 2i 3) This court after hearing ali the parfies passed the foliowing ordei which reads as under: "In visw of abovs legai position, if n'e iook into the impugned order dated 4-5-2005, perusal of order reveais that the Specified Officer oassed the following "Perused ihe matter. Considered the facts and foilowlng judgment is passed (1) the petition is in accordance with the legal provisions, therefore, pre!im'inary objection is rsjected. (2) the case of ttiis Court bearing No.54/B-121/04-05 be tagged with this cass which wiil be treated as part of this case and there is no need of any other evidence and therefore, decision taken 'for recount." "If v>/e iook into ths above order, the order is illegal and contrarv to the Rules as the same has framing the issues and withoirt hearing therefore, sams is iiabte to be set aside. e, wimo the oarties ths petition r -3- psn/erse and contrary to the Rules is hereby and iearned Specified Officer (Sub Divisi( ) is Offroer, iings in :t the accordance v/lth the Rules 11 & 12 of the and pass the tinai order after hearina the the matter. Learned Specified Officer to decide th ion petition as eariy as possible riod 4} Learned counsei further submits that the SDecified OFficer without framing the issues passed an terms: order on 21-3-2006 in foltewina '"J^? *ine.M ^*S <»*<l'<s? 48 ^' T@f ^St <jUji! q^f 'fS ^"Sr>f ^IGI'^T'^ •3[n'^^?HT ^f '^T'3??^' '^[TS l^'^'ll ^ ^Sii'c '^' q» 'n^SST 31 ^3t|a|| i^| '^j'f|-^'tSi'j' m7^ aft .fta^ .T^T SfRfl' aW IRrf ^?t ^'cT ^ Wi. ^rar—ym rsFf ^ftt ^ ^i1<4'^ ^^ ^ ?|siT 'iSJf X|<f'?p3pjy *^ flS'tllrtcj''. !'a<?j!^<|d ffa. VWI d»i^'4jriTt •3TfERiro •yj^'UG I?^PIrT i^^l!^^'^ ^t [<Pl<^l "^iT^' Uj-esKiiHl ll"1''>»)!<1'1! V in'til W^S 9'W 46 q? ti'iMd IR '3? "•^ -•' fnw^ "Eji^iiojd 4' i^gr f^?aT 'vif^ i" 5) Being aggrieved, the petitioner flied this writ petition inter-alia 'on the ground that the Specified Officer has relied on sub rule (4) of Ruie 77 of M.P. provision in C.G. Panchayat Nir»'achan ?5, when there is no such 1995. The Soecified Officer has compieteiy ignored the reievant provisions i.e., Rule 77 o'f C.G. Panchavat Niroachan Niyam 1995. S Shri Suni! Sahu, learned counsei apDearinfl for the resoondent .1 admits that it is true ttiat sub'rule (4) of Rule 77 is not avajlable ^ -L)- C.Q. Panchavat Nirvachan Nivam 1995. The SDecified Officer has relied on sub ruie (4) of Ruie 77 of M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam 1995. thus, to that extent. the order is bad. The Soecified CTficer has further relied on the fact that at the time of seaiing of bailot ooxes. nesthsr the ag the candidates »verepresent. Therefcrs, the order date; 4-5-2005 for rscount of votes is proper and vaiid. 7) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submite that no evidencs has been ieci to the effect as to whether the baiiot boxss v/ere seaied in absence of the parties/candidates/agents. No order can be passed without framing the issues of facts and law to order recount of the vo'tes. 8) Learned counse! appearing for the respondent No.5 agrees with the submission made by learned counse! appearing ror the petitloner. )} in view of foregolng, the order dated 4-5-2(305 passed by the Spscified Officer is bad-in-iaw and without spplication of relevant provisions of isw. Thus, the order dated 4-5-2005 passed by the Specified Officer, is quashed. However, the Specified Offlcer is required to frame the issues and examine the facts with regard to the saaiing ot' baiiot boxes ailegedly in absence of the candidates/agents and proceed to pass the fina! order, as eariy as possible, preferabty within s period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 0) Accordingly, the writ petition is dispossd of. SQl- Satish K. Agnihottl Judge raju