,^ ^y ^'^ tissi ^ft^f 03 £8 T^E, HOUK&ABLS CHHAlrTIoGARH,,,,HXGH COURT OP •JUDlCATURE' . ^T< BILASPUR (C.G.) Wrifc Petition No. ^^12^'/200 5 - ~-j- ^\ Smt. Kamal Bai w/o shri Nokhelal aged about 39 y©ars,Resldence of VilXage" Bahardih Tahsil Mastarl Distfc. Bilsspar (c»G.) v^sus RgSpOHpgNYS ^ ./y'j ^7 <^/ • <-\<f ^l ..o^ ^Y^ U Stafee of Chhafctisgarh; fchrough its, Prtocipsl Secrat^ryt Panehfafe and SocAal Welfar® Deparfement Stafee Secratiriat^ D.K<S. Bhswan Raipur» Slstt* Raipur (C.G,) / 2, Sub divislonal Officer & Prescribed Officer^ Under Paneh^at Raj Adhtoiyam Bllsspur, Distt» Bilaspur C,G» -- 3. presid&ng Officer, polling boath N^122 Iliirough^ Assisfeenfe el©cfcionOfficer^ Tahsildar Masturi^ Distt^ 3lla^>ur e,^^ 4» Amrit Lal^ Eleated Sarpanch Gr^n P^soh^at^ Bohardih» 5, Kum'ari Bhargav» Candidate for the posfe of Sarpanah, Gr^n Panahaysfe Bohardih. 6, Oanga Ram^ Candidate for fehe posfc of Sarpanch^ Gram - Panahayafc Bohardlh^ 7. photo Lal, Gandidate for the post of Sarpaneh^ Oram Panche- yat Bohardih, Q^ Jhimuk Lal^ Candldate for the posfe of Sarpanch, Oram Panahayafc Bohardih, //2// 1: vi. '-i- ;-\ //2// 04 ^9. Bharat, Gan<3i<3ate for the post of Sarpanch^ Gram Panchayat Sohardih. 10. Manoj, Candidate for bhe post of Sarpanch^ Gram Panchayat Bohardih, / 11, Raj Kuraar, Candldate for the post of Sarpanch^ Gra@» Panchayat Bohardi.h. / 12. Smt. RacSiika, Gandidafee for fehe post of Sarpanch^- Gra^ Panchayat Bohardih. , 13. Rara Kuiaar» Candidate for the post of Sarpancha Gr^n Panch^at^ Bohardlih. /14, Ram prasad, Candidate for the post of Sarpapch^ Or^i Panch^yafe Bohardi&'"'"' .. ; 'T'-. ( 15, Lallu, Candtdate for the post of Sarpanoh^ Gram Panchayat Bohardih. l6» Shiv KuBiar» Carididai-e for fehe post of Sarpanch^ Gram Panchayat Bohardih^ / 17^ Sartfeosh^ Gandidsfce for the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bohardih. / 18» Santodfci, Gandidate for the post of Sarpanch^ Oram P^ohayat Bohardih, .' l9« Santosh Das, Candidafee for fehe post o£ Sazpanch, <3r^n Panchayet^ Bohardih. (Respaident No«4 to 19 AXl are resid^noe o£ Village^ Bohardih Tahsll Masturi. Disfct. Bilaspur C»G,) //3// //3// J^y PSTiyiON QNDSR ARTICLS 227/226 0^ CONSTITUTION OF INDlA gOR ISSUANGE 0V yRIT IN NJtTORS OP GERTIORARy* MAHDA6/1US__^TS« ANO 3?X)R APPROPRIATE, ORDER/ORDERS/ DlRSCriONS g^ - XI-HC-22 3^T^)T ^l^h^n^T ^W^cT iiimiiiiiMiNli' 3^'^l^Krt^, ^Tf)<rtjl(o, [^<rt!^^< 30 3Tlit?Tq^^ ^IH^T$b^(ch ^ 200^> ^•^ Id^<4 3TT^T^<[T8EK^fN 27-7-2005 AAr. Msrza Kaiser 8009, Mr* Yashwant Singh respondents No,l <& 2* Heard both the counse! on| By this writ petition undejr India, the petitioner has que^tio^ed of order doted 9-3-2005 passejd bivisional officer, Bilaspur, whejreby rejected the election petition fi|ed 122 (1) of the Chhottisgarh Pancjhayat that the petitioner has not ^erwd documents and affidavit on the rle^ the non-compliance of sub-rule (^] (Election Petition Corrupt Pracfice Rules. 1995, hence, the petiti4n provisions of Rule 8 of the said Learned counsel for the attested copies of all the do{: respondent, But, perusal of the impugnjed not raised before the Sub Divi^ibnai Rule 3 of the ftules, 1995, pres^r <=t)l<4?(ri41-l HTR^ff^ te^f ^R ^3Tf^R'3:fl^T cou|isej for the petitioner, T^akur, Govt Advocate for the State/ ladmission. Art-icle 226/227 of the Constitution of the legajity, propriety and correctne^s by the Specified Officer i.e, the Sub the learned Specified Officer has by the petitioner herein under Section Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, on the ground ^erved attested copies of the petition, rjespondents, therefore, it is held that it is |!) of Rule 3 of the ChhQtt-is9arh Panchaycri' and Disqudification of Membership) is liable to be dismissed as per the Rliles. F|etitioner argued that the petitioner filed :uments and same were served on the order shows thfft such an objection was Officer, Provisions of sub-rule (2) of :ribe that every election petition shall be XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T ^i<=h3Tf^F ^lT^^rfN Soma /^ ;% 3^T ^l^ld^, ^Tn<Hjt(o, ^i<rtl^^< 311^1 Msich ^^..(.o.y^^-^l rraT' "<w''< •'•'^'' •>^TT^ 200 ^ ^THC-TT ^i^icb 31 I^OQ& 31r^?r^TTW^{?cT „ accompanied by as many copies t in the petition and every such 4)l^fd41^ ^l^dT^te^^R^K ^3Tf^T3TT^T hereof as there are responderrt-s mentioned copy shalt be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a 1|rue copy of the petition. Rule 8 of the said lays dowh that if the provi^ions of Rule 3 or Rule 4 or Rule 7 have not been complied with, the petit)on shall be dismissed by the Specified Officer provided that the petiljion shall not be dismissed under this Rule without giving opportunity of b€|ing heard. Perusal of the impugned order furt'her shows thot copy of th served on the respondents/was ^ petition dong with affidavJt, which was |not attested by the petitioner, therefore, the S.D.O. held thot the provisi<j)ns of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 are mandotory and non-compliance of the same ^ntails dismissal as per ftule 8 of the Rules, 1995. Therefore, the order pasjsed by the learned Specified Officer is in consonance with sub-rule (2) ofj such, I do not find any illegality circumstances, the petition is v»| Consequently, M.(W.)P.Nd disposed of. Rule 3 and Rule 8 of the Rules, 1995, as |xnd infirmity in the order impugned* In the |ithout any substance/same is liable to be dismissed and it i5 hereby disr^is^ed, at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs, .2721/2005 and I.A.No.6281/2005 stand Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (ift^^r)