BEFOSE HON'BLE HIGH COURT GF CHHATTIS5.ARH AT BILASPUR (CG). 43,c Civil Revision No. ^.-'. . . .2006 ELECTION PBTITIONm ../:» ^yw''""'' (O^ .<^t ^-^ .^•••" ^0' ^' RESPONDENIS s KA»W%1^ ^'^i^Vj^ |te»^t<""<S' ^. E.. K^'. ^. — ^0^<yl o-1^\ : SMT. , BOJ JAHAN, .AGED ABGUT 43 YEAR.S, •/ ^ W/0 Mr. Mohd. Atik R/0 Dr« Bhim Kao tobedkar Ward No.27, Mowa Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.)* vmsus 1. SMC. SALMA BBGUM, ^GED ABOUC 36 YEARS, W/0 Mr. Sheikh Anwar, BIsctgd Councellor, Or» Bhim Rao Ambedkar Ward NQ. 27, Mowa Nagar Palika Nigam, Raipur (C.G.)« 2. Smfc. Shakuntala Pandey, W/0 Mr. Sabhapati Pandey, H/0 Panchwati Nagar, Mowa Ward No. 27, ^agar Palika Nigaisa, Raipur (C«G,)« 5. SMC. PUSHPA SHATHE, V/0 Mr« DINESH SHATHE R/0 L.I.C.Colony, Mowa Ward No. 27, Nagax' Palika Nigam, Raipuc'. 4. SMI* ISHRATJ BEE W/o . Ejaj Hussain R/0 Dabri Talab PaT Nowa Ward No.27, Nagar Palika NigaiB, Raipur 5» SMg. mHESHWARI, YER3Y1A ^ W/0 Mr« DEVCH^RAN VERMA, R/0 Naharpara Kapa ^rd NQ. 27, Nagar Palika NigaBi, Raipur (C.G.)« 6.. ^' SMF. GAYATRI BAI, W/0 . SHANKAR LAL BAYA R/0 Dr, Bhim Rao Ambedkar Ward No.27, Mbwa, Nagar Palika Nigaa, Raipui' (C»G«), Contd....2 :: 2 :: 7. SMC. IEELAVATI SAHU '' W/0 « L^KHAN SAHU B/o Qr. BMro Rao <8mbedkar Ward No« 27, ]vtowa ^agar palika Nigam, Raipur (C.G.). 8, S . SUNITA YADAV W/0 . RiJENDRA Y.ADAV, 8/0 Dr» Bhim Rao AiDbedkar Ward No. 27, Mowa,Nagar Palika NigaB), RAIPtR (C.G.). 9. Municipal Corporation, Raipur Throygh Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.). 10, Chief Elesrtion Commissi^D, ^ For, State o£ Chhattisgarh, Man-fcralaya- D.K.S. Bhawan, Baipur (C.G.)« 11. The Returning Offlcer-Cum- Collector, Raipur Tah. & Distt. RAIPUR (C.G.). CIVIL REVISION U/S 115 OF THE CCDE OF CIVIL mOCEDLRE. XI-HC-78 ^TI^T^Tf^rt^ cCT'3^R?T$b^lch \\; ^s *n*ic<iish*iic»> 3^^n^T^^, ^Tfra7re, f^dK-iy ..^:^C^^.^^200^ CA /3J/^ SP^f ^^8R (yt^SK^T) ^TT^R: ^f?cT W^T 08.09.2006 Shri V. Tamaskar, ieaml The matter is listed onl A.R.(J)'s note dated 29.| i|ed counsei for the petitioner. (1) (2) (3) (4) The petiti^ delay appl] Security a|r and receirit Index is inl Petition Corporatic >n is barred by 59 days, condonation of lication has not been filed. a|riount of Rs. 250/-lhas not been deposited has not beenfiled. ;ompiete. not been filed under C.G. Munidpa! Act, 1956. hlas dn Learned counsei for th|< condonation ofdefaults on 4.8J Shri Tamaskar, iearn4 petitioner submits that as per| CivJI Procedure, under which petition is wei! within time aii deposjted by the petitioner submits that as per Rule 5 o{ Petition) Ru!es 1963, the proc^ petition should be as per provis PIacing reliance on the the matter of P.T. Raian Vs. T SCC 498, itis argued that the chNld^ W:l?ff^te^t<^^< ^3:rf^T3TI^T defaults as pointed out by the office vide i.2006 for foliowing shortcomings:- i|e petitioner has moved an appiication for J2006. |d counsei appearing on beha!f of the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of t|ie revision petition has been preferred, the |id the security amount has aiready been ^efore the Eiection Tribunai. He further the C.G. Municipai Corporatjon (Eiection ^dure to be foliowed for disposai of eiection h'ons ofthe Code ofGivii Procedure. judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in IP.IVI. Sahir and others reDorted in (2003) 8 real test to interpret any statute particularly XI-HC-78 w^T^rR^ich cT^TT 3TI^T ^TW K»NNat-:^' •\ ^ ^ 3^T^TPTI^T, ^Tn<1^(o, f^^tW^ *1I*l^l Sh^lich C^^iQ.^i^ 2004 31T^?T tr3F5T (^cii^^T) ^RTTW ;R^T ^TI^T -2— pertaining to procedural provi as directory if no prejudice is ' Further relying upon th the matter of Ram Prasad sions even if it uses "shal!" may be construed ^aused. ^e judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharma Vs. Mani Kumar Subba and others reported in (2003) 1 SCC 28$ be rejected at the threshoid bearing on the matters to be ^ >n the slightest pretext which may not have ^trictiyadheredto. i have heard learned c The revision against petition is fiied under Section date of such decision in the Hl Municipal Corporation petitioner is required to depo^ of the revision and in case with, the High Court isto disrr^ the Admittediy, the revisior^ and the same does not security amount as per Rule by learned counsel for the pe| facts ofthe present case. Thus, iooking to the entertained and the same i^ abovementioned defauits. A4 cbl^I<n1'flT1 HTR^ff ^ fe^ rf^T^K ^ 3Tf^T W^T , it is submitted that election petition should »^>t unsel for the petitioner. order of election Tribunal in an eiection |441 (F) (2) of the Act within 30 days from the |igh Court and as per Rule 19 (2) ofthe C.G. (Eie4tion Petition) Rules, 1963, the revision |it a sum of Rs. 250/- as security for the cost provisions of the rules are not complied issthe petition. the has been ^referred with a deSay of 59 days accc|mpany the receipt regarding deposit of the |9 (2) of the Act. The judgments cited above pe|itioner have absoiuteiy no application in the nature of defaults the petition cannot be liabie to be dismissed on Ihe account of cordingiy, it is dismissed. p^e^^^s^a 3^Se