IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE^AT^BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. (Ct N0. £3,30 /^OIO-^I) Pfl^ 6^^?f) PETITIONER Bisakha Bai, W/o Ramavtar Verma, aged about 38 years resident of village Bija Gond, Tahsil - Saja, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPOWDENTS 1] Ritu Bai, W/o Sudarshan Janghel, resident of Bijagamend, Tah. Saja District Durg (C.G.) 2] Pramila Bai, W/o Lekhpal Yadu, resident of Nawagaon, Tah. Saja, District Durg (C.G.) 3] Rambai, W/o Rafan Janghel, village Bijagamend, Tah. Saja, Dist. Durg 4] Ahilya Bai, w/o Piluverma, resident of Suvertala, Tah. Saja, District Durg 5] Sri M.N. Jha (Veterinaiy Doctor, Saja), Assistant Election Officer, Saja. 6] Sri S.R. Diwan, Tahsildar, Saja, Election Officer (Panchayat), Saja WRIT PETITION UND^ ARTICLE 226 Ss 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^\ ; -E--^/^c ^x'<-v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 No. 6390 of2011 PETITIONER : BisakhaBai. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Ritu Bai & Others. AP^ ^-^-"".-i^y^ WRITPETITIQN UNDERARTICLE 226 &227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER CPassed on 18th day ofNovember, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30.06.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), (for short 'the SDO') Saja, District Durg, in Case No. 10/A-89/09-10, whereby the election petition filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the- petitioner contested for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bijagond, Block and Tahsil Saja, District Durg. After completion of election process, the respondent No. 1 was declared elected. The petitioner preferred an election petition under section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 on the ground that1 the respondent No. 1 did not possess the requisite qualification. After hearing the parties, the SDO, Saja passed the impugned order dismissing the election petition ofthe petitioner. 3. On perusal of the impugned order dated 30.06.2010, it is apparent fhat the SDO, Saja found that there were no signatures il'n' <;;^". !%|^^B%^^'-£*!R'iflB!tiS!^!^^E"^" i''-'-:'" 'SSSSh t f!!S! on each page of the election petition and tbe same was also not attested, as required under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Cormpt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules, 1995'). Even after having sufficient opportunity to make good the default, nothing was done. 4. The Supreme Court, in K.K.Ramchandran Master v. M.V.Sreyamakumar & Others , while considering the requirement of election petition under the provisions of Representation ofPeople Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act, 1951'), held that under section 83, it is required that the petition be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the procedure for verification ofthe pleadings. The provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1995 is same as provisions of section 83(l)(c)oftheAct,1951. 5. This Court, in Rekha Rupa Sahu (Smt.) v. Vineet Bafna & Others , held that Rule 5 ofthe Rules, 1995 makes a provision for contents of the petition wherein it is prescribed, inter alia, that the election petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings. Rule 8 ofthe Rules, 1995 provides that if the provisions of Rule 3 or Rule 4 or Rule 7 has not been complied with, the petition shall be dismissed by the Specified Officer provided that the petition shall not be dismissed ' 2010 AIR SCW 4583 22011(I)SlJPR-CG134 !llii[I^.^L!l.iiT. ;a-s'?*'nl*ai,. "^£>, ^?'^- '^ :? !|,,,,..s"ns& under this rule without giving the petitiorier an opportunity of being heard. 6. Rule 5 and 8 ofthe Rules, 1995 reads as under: "5. Contents of the petition. - An election petition shall- (a) contains a concise statement ofall material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) set forth with sufficient partieulars, the grounds on which the election is called in question; (c) be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in fhe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), for the verification ofpleadings." 8. Procedure on receiving petition.- If the provisions of rule 3 or rule 4 or rule 7 have not been complied with, the petition, shall be dismissed by the specified officers: Provided that fhe petition shall not be dismissed under this mle without giving the petitioner an opportunity ofbeing heard." 7. Since the mandatory requirement as stated above, was not fulfilled by the petitioner even after having sufficient opportunity. The election petition of the petitioner was rightly dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions ofthe Rules, 1995. 8. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional error, infmnity or irregularity in the impugned order. Thus, this Court, in exercise ofits power under Article 226 anU 227 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with; the impugned order which is legal, just and proper. (See Abdul Razak (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle ^f^ .. l''-si. ^ f ":. . ri'K».. f^ (f) & Others , Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patif). 9. Applying fhe well settled prmciples oflaw to the facts ofthe case on hand, fhe writ petition is dismissed. 10.No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 3 2010 AIR SCW 1414 4(20105'8SCC329