Petitioner ) Respondent No.1 / 1. Respondents m 5 Respondent No.2 2. (Presiding Officer) Respondent No.3 3. / «Wiwww“ & gigx\ 4. / 5. / r SINGL£ mm BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT pETITION (227) No. él? /2o11 /Dilip Yadav, aged about 32 years son of Shri Nilambar Yadav, occupation— Agriculture, Caste — Rawat, R/o. Viil. Kudekeia, Tahsil- Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) VERSUS Virendra Singh Rajput, aged about 26 years, caste — Rajput, occupation — Agricuituristp R/i. Kudekela, Tah. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) Bharat Lai Bharadwaj, aged about — not known to the petitioner, S/o Late Sadhram, Department of Irrigation — Pussaur, PO & Tah. Pussaur, Distt.Raigarh (CG) Tarun Sharma, aged about — not known to the-petitioner, S/o Shri Ram Sharan Sharma, R/o. Kudekela, Tah. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) Coilector, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) (Election Tribunal), Prescribed Authority (Under Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam), Tah. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ~ ‘ / (aq/’ HIGH COURT O‘F CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) NO.617 OF 2011 PETITIONER/ Dilip Yadav Respondent No.1 Versus RESPONDENTS Virendra Singh Rajput & Others (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri A.N. Bhakta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.K. Dewangan, Advocate forthe respondent No.1. Shri Rakesh Dubey, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. 5 ORDER (Passed on this 24‘ day of November, 201 1) , Heard learned counsel forthe parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 10-1—2011 (Annexure — P/1) passed by the Sub Divisional Ofticer—cum-Specified Officer, Dharamjaigarh, Raigarh, in revenue case No.06-A/89 year 2009-10 (Virendra Singh Rajput v. Dilip Yadav & Others) whereby the election petition preferred by the respondent No.1 herein has been allowed and directed for recounting of votes. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impinged order has been passed without framing issues and without affording proper opportunity to the parties to adduce evidences, documents, thus, the impugned order is bad in law. Learned counsel relies on a decisions of this Court rendered in Parvatia v. Padmini & Other31 and Shyam Ratan'v. Siyaram & Othersz in support of his submission that no election petition can be decided without framing issues and examining the witnesses produced by the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as respondents, fairly submit that the impugned order suffers from deficiency and infirmity on account of the above stated reasons. Thus, the impugned order may be quashed and further the matter may be remitted back to the election tribunal for deciding the same in accordance with law after framing issues and examining witnesses properly. 5. Learned counsel for the parties further submit that a stipulated time may be fixed for decision of the election petition in view of the fact that 1 2005 (2) CGLJ 335 s s ,_ 2 WP No.427o or2005 (decided on 19-11-2008) \\ “ '77 there has been a delay on account of the impugned decision, which is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disquaiification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short “the Rules, 1995") provides for procedure before the specified officer and his powers. lt is prescribed that subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shall be enquired into by the specified officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ”the CPC"), to the trial of suits. The proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 ofthe Rules, 1995 provides 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. Rule 11 ofthe Rules, 1995 reads as under: s “11. Procedure before the specified officer and his powers.—— (1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shall be enquired into by the specified officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial 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, shall have the powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit in respect of the following matters:-- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses, and requiring the deposit of their expenses; § (c) compelling the production of document; (d) examination of witnesses on oath; (e) reception of evidence taken on affidavit; and (f) issuing commission for examination of witnesses and summoning and aini suo moto any person whose evidence, rs to hi to be appea m eri.” visions have been a for framing of issues. Rule 3 Order XIV of the CPC provides for material rom which issues may be framed and Rule 4 provides for examition of witsses and docuts before fraing issues. I the case on hand, th i a mateial denial of t proition, as affirmed by the applicant befor the election tribunal. Thus, framing of issu and examination of witsses is necessary bre sing the order. he impugned order passed by the election tribunal, it appears to have been passed without compling with the substanti procedure as rovided under the provisn f Iw. Having reard to the fact sition of the case ad conideng the submisio made hi, th ied d dated 10-1-2011 (Annexure P/ i qshed. Th matter is reitted back to the Tribunal to decide the case. In view of the foregoing, it is expedient and proper to direct the election tribunal to consider and decide the case afresh, in accordance with Iaw and on its own merits, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, the petition is allowed to the above extent with no order asto costs. Sd/—' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Order XIV of the CPC prides for settiement of issues and determination of suit issues of Iaw r on issues agreed upon. Rule 1 Order XI of the CPC pvides that issues aris whn a material positn fact or law is affir by the party a deied by the other shall or the subject of a distinct issue and thereafter, pro mde f na ne men m n ere s r he pos e 5 es ne efo pas T y al p ios o a g s uat n sri sns erenabove e mpugn orer 1) s ua e m Gowri N if I ‘ A"; H exmng matal ov on o V ro e e rpoio of med one nd n fm