IGH O! t ;- .E SHR1 SU Vljay Laxmi Oropati Banjare and others Post for Order : 2^./02-2/2011 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Vijay Laxmi, VV/'o Shri 'uiesh, A -^.-».^ nyei- y^ ;' cti^uui. <^~f Viliaae Tehsi! Patsn, ro, Presemlv years, Gondpendri, Disirict working as Ssrpanch Gram Panchayat-Gondpendri. Tehsii Patan, District Durg hhattisgarh ^ i3 8 Dropat! Ban'are. VV/o Roshan i /«i rsAw.i'/tv^ rt n.^^f ^|£»A>>* /^-o L.SIS OcSi ijdi t5, ^yc':u QiJ^ui, ^.^f vears. R/o Vi Gondpendri, Up-Khsnd (Ftevenue), Patan, Tehsil Patan, Dlstrict Chnattisaarri r»!!i— i-iuly, r^w^rt*. ^ i i 1^/Ci; Sub-Dlvisionsl Patan, Head Quarter, Durg, \:^.^^{. ni>-^ /rt /";, \ U^lUL-i,-L-'Ui9 ^.\^.^. inara Devi jangde, W/o Beniram, Aged about 35 years Gisvatri Kosrs. W/Q DharsfTi Das, Aged aboui 40 years Chandni Desh'ahre, W/o Punit Ham, Aged a&out 29 ;SI1-3 Onanmati Banjare. VV/o Om Kumar, Aged about 35 years i'/iiii Bai. VWo Baiaram Aged about 40 years Shakuntala Devi, VV/o Saheb Das, Aged about 42 years Shashi Patii, W/o Dev Singn, ^SQ 5DOUI Ov ygsfS Sunita, W/o Ramdas, Aged sbOLit 36 years, Suruj Bai Jangde, VV/o Samaru Ram, Aged about 56 years M. '\; R'- MW-a 12 13 16 No.3 to '11 is R/o Viilage Gondpsnd'i, 'shsii Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh Election Officer, Block Patan, n.;^ji.*.;^4. n,,^,^, //^ ^ \ L^i^sii il..'i, L/Ui^ ^.-.-3.^ Returning Officer, Janpad Panchayat-Patan, Tehsi! Patan, Distrid Durg (C.G.) Shri Jain Singh Netam, Eiection Officer, Tnrough Tehsildar Gunderdehl, Villaae Kural. Tensii Gunderdshi, District Durg IU.U..I Shn Dllsshwsr Prsssd Sshu, Viliage Bhattakuteri, Tehsil Gunderdehi, Dlsfrict Durg u.y.) h.=^ O—^-"-^ ^..^-s"-; './^^'•"'?-<• OFi'ri 3~''5r@5 iViSHi i-\UisG[ia, Viliaae Tehsii Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) ya.'"' fiia!s^-~ T'-<> '^1^*^^ s i3 ^ s i<-fi-S 4^i~ [jr^^si-B& Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate fos" the applicant. Mr. M.D. Dhote, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panei Lawyer for responcient sin 7/c Divisiona! Officer. ii •'ttor ito. i '<. (2,8.02.2011] (11 The petitioner was an eiected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Gondpendri, which was reserved for The candidates of Scheduled Caste categorv. The eiectlon of the petitioner was cal!ed in question by f'ting an eiection petition by respondent No.1 under Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Many documento rejatlng to the status of the petitioner were filed by the election petitioner. The petitioner was called upon to fHe reply, The petitioner fiied her repiy and v-e denied the contentions raised by the election petitioner. Tne Tribunal called upon the partles to submit the documents and thersafter, the impugned order dated 13.07.2010 (Annexure P/1) was passed and the eiection petition filed by respondent No.1 was atlowed and the election of the petitioner was declared void. (2) Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, !earned counsei appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the Tribunai did not conduct proper enquiry; no opportunity to adduce orai evidence was given to the petitioner; and the finding of the Tribuna! has been recorded on unproved documents; t'nerefore, the sanr'e deserves to be set aside. (3) On the other hand, Mr. M.D. Dhote, learned appearing on behalfofthe election petitioner'respondent No.1 and Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Sub Divisional Officer'respondent No.2 opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the Election Tribunal. (4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at iength and have aiso perused the records ofthe writ petition. (5) Ru!e 11 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Eiection Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disquallfication for Membership) Ru!es, 1995 (t'or short "the Rules, 1995") provides for procedure 'oefore the specified officer and his powers. It is prescribed that subject to t'ne provlsions of these rules, every eiectlon petition shai! be enquired into by the specified officer as neariy, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable underthe Code of Civit Procedure, 1908, to the tria! of suits. Th.e proviso to sub-rule (1) of Ruie 11 of the Rules, 1995 provides that it shall oniy be necessary for tiie F.P.(C) N0.3626/2011 '~~, .-s- .^•" specified officer to make a memorandum of the subsiance of evidence of any w'tness examined bv him. i) Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995 reads as under;- tne specitie^ rowers.- (1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shali be enquired into by the specifisd officer as neariy; as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicabie under the Code of CMI Procedure, 1908, to the tria! of suits; Provided that it shall only be necessary for the specified officer to make a memorandum of the substance of evidence of any witness examined by him. (2) The specified officer, shali have the powers 'which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civ!l Procedure, 1 908, when trying a suit in respect of the foilowing matters:- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses, and requiring the deposlt of their expenses; (c) compeliing the production of document; fd) examination of witnesses on oath; (e) reception of evidence taken on affidavit; and (f) issuing commission for examlnation of witnesses and summonlng and examining suo rnoto any person 'whose evldence, appears to him to be material. (7) A peru-sa! of the records wouid show that the petitioner had denied the contentions raised by respondent No.1. Therefore, reievant issues were required to be framed and trie parties v/ere required to be called upon to adduce their evidence on the issues framed on the pleadings ot' the contesting.pqrtles as prescribed under Rule 11 of Rules, 1995 F- 19^*^^tt^ and normallv follov/f Civil for decidina a suit under the Code of has not been has reiied on the has recorded the on no material (8) tn the present case, the above foiiowed by the Tribunal. The Tri'ounal unproved documents fi!ed by the parties and findings against the petitioner which is based proved on record. (9) On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the partles and the grounds taken in the writ petition as also the facts and circumstances, upon which, the Election Tribunal has passed the impugned order dated 13.07.2010 (Annexure P/1), the impugned order cannot be sustained. (10) For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allovi.'ed. The impugned order dated 13.07.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Election Tribunal in Election Petition NQ. 26A/89/2009- 10 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Election Tribunal, which sha!t frame retevant issues on the controversv ra.isec' between the parties and shali calt upon the parties to adduce orai and docurnentary evidence and thereafter, shall decide the Eiection Petition in accordance with !aw keeping in mind the provisions of Ruie 11 of Rutes, 1995. ;11) No order as to cost(s). Sd/- ^ ^ Sinba shvna