riii§l8Benctl /t^ c\^ •,c'l/ '» IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL^PUR J^L- -T.IILI^-2£.t.«..'3..^».SS.-.?-92l PETITIONER Smfc^ PremjL Bai^ wife of Bisahu Lal Tamrakar^ aged about 66 yea'r^ residenfc o.f village $ Ghutku^ Tahsil $ Takhatpur^ Distt : Bilaspur ( C,G. ) RESPONDENTS VERSUS ^,--y[ '^- ^^ ,..-->T' 1» State of Chhafctisgarh fchrough the Secrefcary^ Panchayat and Social Welfare Department^ D^K^S^ Bhawan^ Raipur ( C.G. ). 2^ /:^'y 2" ?1?®.c?l?L®Gfc?^f Bilaspur ^^ / ^-"" Disfcrict : Bilaspur ( C»G, ) 3, Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue )^ Kota^ Distt s Bilaspur ( C.G^ ) 4» Tahsildar ( Returning Office^ Takhatpur^ Bistricfc $ Bilaspur ( C.G, ) ^/ ''^ ^z:/ c^ ^i. r'"'"^^ :^ o- ^&^ Nayab Tahsx^?r t Area Refcurning Officer )^ Gani- yari^ Districfc : Bilaspur ( C G. ) 6» Chief Execufcive Officer^ Janpad Panchayafc^ Takhatpur, Disfcrict $ Bilaspur ( C^G, ) ^1?.»SS?ZI2S.-I2£S£.-^RTI9I^....^2.64227-OSLJ2E.-C^SSI.^H^£2^ OF INDIA. i?-1.^'^^-—..-—^- 'w^ww^ra? '3^T ^l^l^^, '^Tft^TS, f^lTOy ^....,,.,,.m...^.^.0^ -3TI^T 1?^5l ('^3^^) w^r^r^it^ TOT ^Tt^T^^N? I^TW1Rft^3?I^T ^Flfel^^ ^FEi? ^ 'fec^ <fw^K ^<3^H^I!^r 18-1-2005 On a mentlon beina made, tljie case is taken yp for hearing. Shri V. K, Pandey, coun^ei f^r the petitioner. Shrl V-V.S. Murthy, DeDuJt'y Advocate Gcnerat for the State /re^pondent^ NoJ to 5. Heard both the counse!. The pe+itjoner has pr@f€r|rled thi^ writ pe+ition under Ar+icle 226/227 of the Con^tltutlon of Indla questlonlna the leaajlty and correctne^ of the order pas^c^ by re^pondent No.4 whereby the nomlnotlon paper of the petitlon^r for contestlng the eiection for thc po^t of Sarpanch of yiij^e Pan^ 29-12-2004. The petitioner^ grievance i^ has rejected ori the grou| R^.37,500/- are outstanding agdn| learned counsei for the paper has been rejected totail^ and as per the provlslonj Sectlon 36 of the Panchayat RaJ ^ whlch are recoverabJe by the Pan< dues/ He furthcr submitted that hayat ^hutku ha^ been rejected on that the petltioner^ nomlnation pape?"5 nd that to the tunc of st her hu^band Bi^ahulai Tanmrakar. setitioner' submitted that nominutton on the Irreievant and non-exi^tent S of clause (p) of ^ub-section (1) of Idhiniyam'no per^on ^halj be elJ9ible to be an offlcc-bearer of thc Panctayat if he has not pdd d! the ;hayat agaln^t any type of outstandjna as per thj^ provlsion nomlnation -of^h^ ^tltl^ncr^drt b6 r"6j66tgd~7f-wiy am^urti' jgL.oulstiacidi^^ aqait GRPRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50r000. T XI-HC—78 -5^f ^l^l<y1^!, ^Tli'Li^l<o, [®i<v|l<Lllj,< _.......^.:.!.:.....?fe... 31T^T ^^^ (^f^^) STT^T ^T'f^iNT ^T^T ^TF^T'^'RT^ ^^?^T^fN^¥r — •^ ^prf^FTS^ 'RT^ff "^ fe^t ipsi^K ^3tf^r3?Tt^T Barye \.^ ^ \-~ <. her, Since no du©^are out^tandina be re.Jected on the ground that husiband, a§ha^ been held by the Divl order dated 14-1-2005 that aftej proce^, judiciai intervention i^ not p| In the given situatior?, learnedl ^ithdraw thi,s petition with jiberty t^ Leamed counsel for the petjj retUi^nlna officer J^ not aivlng cert| .therefore, the returnina offlcer be of the rejection order to the petltio^ Prayer seem^ to be Justifjed* a^ wjthdrawn with iiberty to avdi d petitloner under the !aw with a direc^ certified copy of the rejection ordeq Consequently, M.(W.5P. Ho:. ^tand ai^po^ed of< PartiBs are entitted for 49^^^t her/nomjnation paper cannot dues are outstanding aaamst her Mon Bench in L.P.A. No.5/2005 vide h the commencement of electlon fcrmJ^jbSe. 1 coun^cl for the petitioner to file EIection Petltion. ftoner further submjtted that the Ifled copy of the rejection order, directed to aive cert'ifled copy 'iosser- fherefore, the petitton is dlsmi^ed |iternative remedy available to the l|lon that respondent No,4 to provlde to the petitioner on deniand. 7(^2005 and I.A. No.331/2005 dso ccrtifjed copy of thls ordcr- Sd/- , L.C. Bhadoo Judge