.t..-n!«'wsl"y'*i:t.'1.J.)*I-'^B ^nnN saR! WTHE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH ATRTI.ASPTTR W.P.NO, ,$fc'8 1 / 2005 Petitioner Hari Shankar Lahare S /Q Shri Slisxnbuds.va} LSJ'ISJ'G. A?yf3ri ahont ^Q ve-^r^ Sai-pancfa Graiii Paiichayat 7? /" \?-"i1.-"~" <?" f ^.^f </ V j-^iU^^. u< Post - Nandal, 'lensil - I'-iavagam, Dist : Durg-(C.G.) Versus Respondents : 1. ^- r'0^ .••••' .,JV ,.^(7 )^.--ahJi.rt'> ^>~" ...••^"....•••^^'L...-"' -^^^•••"" ^°i!< \D;..t-;"' A^-" ><-••"-~"~"?Ti-'> !—< 1^' ^ cgf-.^[ 4. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretaiy, T')flniSirtm<:*rit n-f Pftncb^ivat fln<1 c?nria1 'Welfai-e, Mantraiaya Raipur, rv?-".* . "ra/>4+'t'—//~l <^ \ i^>iSJL . i'uAi.jjj'U.-i. ~^'''>^.S^3.^ Rajkuinar Didore S/6 Sbfi Paduniial Didore, 30 years, R/o Villaee — Cheetaoar. Post & Tehsil - Navagarh, T\^i- • T^"-""--^-Tt r^. ^ .L--'i>^l- • a-^--Ut.ji.^ ^'^/.T^I.^ Girwar Singh -S/o Shri Thanwar, 61 years R/o Villfl_ge—Kanri-.Tehsil—Navflffarh. Dist : Durg-(C.G.i Dauram Banjare s/o rauai.iram Banjare, oO years, R/o Village-Kapri, TehsII-Navagarh, Dist : Durg-fC.G.) Dinesh Kumar S/6 Shri Puhoop Das Satnaaii, Ased about 37 vear-s. R/o Vitlage - Cheetapai', /rL^u.i?-?'i_M^"'"""'-i' i•'E.:.l:i &±i^i'i-cS.V-tfLgiSU.ia. ^ Dist: Durg-(C.G.) Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Banshilal Banjare, 30 yrs R/o Village-Kapri, Tehsil-Navagarh, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) Maniram O //^ CtT->/~cn^"-** T/'s.m QO ^^.•^-"y ^s/ y- Oil-c^Li:tS..<a:l.' -iJU-gl, -^iili ^;'iZ;'<a±-s, R/o Village - Cheetapur, Teasa- Navagarn, uisz '. uurg-^.u.) '^ 8. 9. 10, 11. 12. l^ ^ 14. I- 15. 1 (2) Milau Ram, S/o Santuram Sahu, 50 years, R/o Village - Samesar. Tehsil - Navagarh, T~^;-,4- - T^-T-—/y^ r^ < -UJLUl' • ^"^^Sy ^v^.f Ramdas Manikpuri S/o Guhadas Manikpuri, 35 years R/n V3]3^jQT,p — Sflmp<ssir Tehsil - Navagarh, T\:f--i- . r\^,,^^. fr^ r^ \ •^_^'- • ""--& ^^.^.j Ramratan S/o Bhakla Chatun'edi, 32 years, R/o Village - Cheetapur Tebsil —NavagaTh, Dist: Durg-'C-G-i Shiv Kumar S/o Shri Sundardas Vaishnav, Aeed about 3.5 vears. R/o Village - Samesar, Tp'-cri' - flswrn-h Dist : Durg-(C.G.i Shri M.L.Gupta Sub Divisional OtScer Bemetra cuin Retummg Officer, Block - Navagarh, Tehsfl - Navagarh, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) Shri D.S.Ratre Tr'.e-^—;^'*^*-!-.-f^ffi^w Dist: Durg-(C.G-) T/TIT O; ? -^ A —" Shri B.R.Soni Instructing Officer, ITI Bemetra, Dist : Durg-(C.G.) The Specified Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer, Beiaetra, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) WRITPETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 / 227 QFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA III !1- HIGCT »!®Mffi»rpNig»Hia BiEM s %i BM:BmN 5^Boill^ Petilaiffiuer: /VeESu& Hari^aaiikarLaJaarel S&teaf€3Aatisgaifi|&otliers :'f,:;.]'Fi^Slaj^BeincIi|||I ' .lMr;;;austi^ ::;.'1^, Sy^;prafta31i|^M|||§(^oeate|^t|B^^ : ^:;:..:'.^:.. •: n.' ,; ShriSuslMfe|);u|^ Shn Rajee §KBH»asta9^^A<lvooatefi>r tfaie^respODdent No. 2. None fin'thie otIleriBspondeiits. QRDER i ,. • ..:- ( 6*Kneceinller, 2006) The foBowmg oider ofttie eourtwas'passedl|ySi^isl»K.Aff^^ 1. The petitioner M^ a& etected Sarpaik^ in? a^ 15. l.SOfS' Sm^ Gram PascS^at Ssaa^ TsSisSi - Navagaili, District- Diu% 'I^ i^sp^^ beforc the Specified Officer i.e. Sub DwMipnal Officcr, BBmetei-a; •'9 •'•'.:•.... ..''.- .;:-..•' •'•;'•.'.' ^ :•'. ' ' ."•' . .i ':- DistErct-'DTUg, ..^::. ^: '/. •;'' ;•':-•• 1 • ' :; : ^ - - ^•l :': : :i 2. Tfae preseutpetitioiieEraised oliject^^ that the electicul {(Btitioner djfflJiMft ccanp^ 'wifh. fhe niaD<ia6>iyi rcquirement of tiules^ aiul &|of.^ teDelia^its '•'-' •:;..':^-.-.'- '•."''::^^:\'^;—'"•"''':-'•:•";•''•'.': : .:-..."'.^.: '••'- .'. "1. ^';"^".'"';..:::;- '-;. (Eleetioa Petitio^ <3oiTUpt; I'lact^s a^ Disquali&^aaa |iB3B Memtoershipj RiiB^ $99S ^ io|& ;^rt^*^ il90S'j^|. Specified--8!flBc^|ai^eG$ed|til3^1jE|>.j^Ma^ wifliput;fi;amJiag]pieEiBBUl^^ :Gasi|:^ofM|^!: ! pe aMl^:'l';:''':;'j .i: •':;^: •''•^ • •:"' •:' l^ :• •ffliS liliII -"l'.:;-;-:':iB!B ••^'iS •!» 31BBli ^s -'iSBi •llill alli91 iai'g! SIS SIBi! Iffii :wx 3. Being aggrieved the present petitioiier ffled W.P.No. 4010/2005 chaUengiug the order dated 8.8.2005 passed by fhe Specified Officer. This Court, on 5.9.2005 after hearing learned coiinsel for the parties passed the foUowiug order; 'After going ^hrough the applfaxfion cmd fhe impugned order, this wrif petition is disposed of wifh an obseivation thaf tlw petitionsr herein is entitled to raise an objeetion in retuni and. leamed Spedfied Officer to frame issue on tfial point and dedde the scane in accordanice with law as prelimmaiy issue. However, ii is made clear thcd tfw order impugned slwS no( oome in way while deading the issue reyvding o&jerfion raised by tlw petitioner. ° 4. Puisuaat to the otder dated 5.9.2005, passed by this Court ia W.P.No. 4010/2005, fhe Specified Officer framed tlie issues on 27.10.2005 to fhe effect asto whefher fhc election petition was inaintamable under Rules 3 and 8 offhe Rtiles, 1995 read with Section 122 offhe Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhuuyain, 1993 and whether it is inamtamable and whelfaer recoiuiting caa be dirccted aud result can be declared, as under : - " SIRT 122 irarad ^T*? •3ffeR<!') s? Rwr 3 tfm 8 <^ tfgcT an'^q'r va gRyiri'IN f w ^ f vRnrar'fN t rit g'pfuRT l^ir ^P?, g.pj'OT.ff qyqitT ttRujit) i^t t}tyTT ^qT vn^ | •'' 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has fQed the present petition seekmg a direction to quash the order dated 27.10.2005 passed by the Specified Officer. 6. Shri PrafuU Bharat, leamed counsel appeariug for fhe petitioner submits that fhe issues, as directed by fhis Court vide order dated 5.9.2005 passed in W. P. No. 4010/2005 were not framed_ r':l ^" 3 G>c? as prelimmary issue and the SpeciGed Officer while fmmma issues had directed to recount the votes and declare fhe result, thereof, which is contraiy to the letter and spirit of fhe oider dated 5.9.2005 passed by this Court. Leamed counsel further submits that fhe recounting cannot be ordered in this maaner at the tune of Iramuig issues, which is contrary to the provisions of law. 7. Shri Rajeev Shriyastava, leamed counsel appeariag for the respoudent No.2 fairfy submits ftiat fhe issues may not be properly worded but the order dated 27.10.2005 clearly indicates fhat there was no order of recountuig of votes and declaratiou of result fhereof. That was a part of fhe issue No. 2, framed tlierein. Leamed couasel furfher pointed out fhe order dated 14.11.2005, whereui the appUcation of fhe petitioner to the extent that the issues &anied on 27.10.2005 was not in accordance with the direction of the High Court's orier, was rejected by the Specified Oflficer. The matter was fixed for recording of ev-idence to decule the prelunuiaiy issue with regard to the niamtaitiabilily of fhe •tition. 8. Having h^d leamed couasel for the parties and liaving perused the records, petition and retuni, appended thereto. It appears that ftie oixler dated 27.10.2005 and 14.11.2005 ai-e vague aad ambiguous. The order dated 27.10.2005, which according to learaed counsel for the respondent No.2, is framing ofissues and •-no directioa to recounting of votes and declaring resiilt thereof was passed, is ambiguous. The issues have been fiained in siich a manner which gives an iuipression, as if, fhe order to recount has been passed. The order dated 14.11.2005 is also not clear as •S^SOO O^ SB J3pIO °N 3° pasodsip si uoppad siq}. aopoaiip SAoqe aqi. IBTM 'OI •s^uam no pappap pnre pMapisuoo sq -fem asBO aip 'aq paan ji jagearaqi. pnB fiOOg/OIOfr "ON 'd 'M 1:IF l-ino^ siq^ jtq psssBd japio aip .tad SB ^eig pappap piie paiai-ssuoo aq o^ seq anssi Areuiuutaid sqj, ^uam no anssi pire scissi AiBiKioiia.id 3tp giiiAposds 'ssnssi jesp smB.ij pTie ^uids pOB .13^31 SM m SOOg/OlOt- "°N 'd "M "[ ^inoo siq^ Aq passBd SOO£"6'S pa^Bp Japio aip I^TA ^dmoo o}. pa^oaiip si .raoggo psgioadg atp '3SB3 aq^ jo saoHB^STanoLtio pire e^OBj aip 111 'ABm: ^i SB ^Bip ag •g •asiduaipo jo aopTtad uopoap sqt jo &fiftCjBliiBtEKBTa sq^ 0} ptieSai ipiA anssi .£tBiTimi[aid azp spiosp o^ pajapiio SBM soaapiAs jo Sinpiooai sq} jaipaqA o^ fr