PETITIONER w.P. (227i No. ion? / 2010 o'x RESPONDENTS / 1) Smt. Rekha Rupa Sahu, W/o Shri Ravishankar Sahu, aged about 30 years, Resident of village—Hasda, Tehsil— Magarlod, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS Vineet Bafna, S/o Ashok Bafna, aged about 30 years, resident of village— Nawagaon, P.O.—Hasda, Tehsil-Magarlod, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) Uday Sahu, S/o Shri Kamta Sahu, R/ Village 85 P‘O.—Hasda, Tehsil-Magarlod, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) Komal Sahu, S/o Shri Nohar Sahu, R/o village 8L P.O.-Hasda, Tehsil-Magarlod, District—Dhamtari (C.G.) Vishnu Sahu, S/o Shri Kriparam Sahu, village 85 P.O.»Hasda, Tehsil-Magarlod District-Dhamtari (C.G.) Bhupendra Dhruv, R/o Village-Mohrenga, P.O.—Hasda, Tehsi1~Magarlod, District— Dhamtari (C.G.) Shatrughna Bhargava, S/ o Shri Bhukhan Bhargava, resident of Village— Mohrenga, P.O.-Hasda, Tehsil-Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) Nirmal Chopda, R/o village-Khisora, P.O.- Hasda, Tehsil—Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) The Returning Officer, Janpad Panchayat ' Magariod, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) The Presiding Officer, Polling Booth No. 15, village-Parevadih, Janpad Panchayat Election Area No.3, Tehsil— Magarlod, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) The Presiding Officer, Polling Booth 10) No.16, village—Mohrenga, Tehsil Janpad Panchayat Election Area No.3, Tehsil- Magarlod, District—Dhamtari (C.G.) {FM f IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR o , /‘ 11) The Presiding Officer, Poling Booth No.17, village-Mohrenga, Tehsil Janpad Panchayat Election Area No.3, Tehsil— Magarlod, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) / 12) The Presiding Officer, Polling Booth No.30, village-Hasda, Tehsil Janpad Panchayat Election Area No.3; Tehsil— Magarlod, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) 13) The Presiding Officer, Polling Booth No.31, village-Hasda, Tehsil Janpad Panchayat Election Area No.3, Tehsil- Magarlod, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) /_— 14) The Presiding Officer, Polling Booth No.32, village—Hasda, Tehsil Janpad Panchayat Election Area No.3, Tehsil— Magarlod, District—Dhamtari (C.G.) // 15) The Presiding Officer, Polling Booth No.33, Village—Hasda, Tehs1l Janpad Panchayat Election Area No.3, Tehsil- Magarlod, District—Dhamtari (C.G.) /‘ 16) The Collector, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA l ’ HH\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT 'BiLASiUR WRIT PETITION §227 }. No. 2997 ofZOlG PETYHONER : Smt. Rekha Rupa Sahu VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Vineet Bafna 8L Others WRIT PETiTlON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF TH}; CON S'I‘lTUlIQlg OF {NDIA ‘ otri J. A l SB: Hon’hle Shri Satish Prawn: Sm RR. Patankax, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri?rateek Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. I ORDER gORAL) > (Passed on 28m day of June, 2010) 1. The petitioner impugns the enter dated 6/4/2010 (Annexure P-13) whereby an election petition flied by the petitioner was dismissed summarily. I 2. The brief facts in nutsheil are that the petitioner being aggrieved by the election on the post of Janpaxi 'M/ember, Janpad Panchayat for Janpad Circle No.3, Magariod, District Dhamtari, preferred an election petition on the grounds that severai irregularities were committed in counting of votes, wherein the returned candidate respondent No.1 has obtained 822 votes and the petitioner has obtained 819 votes. Thus, thevrespondent No.1 was deciaxed as eieeted Janpad Member. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an election petition under provisions of Section 122 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyan1,1993 before the Collector "Le. respondent No.16. The J \ said petition was dismissed on 6/4/2019. \\ /\x . K. '\ 3. Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayatg (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices And Disqualification For Membership) Rules, 1995 (in short Ruie, 1995) provides for presentation of election petition. It provides that an election petition shall be presented by the person making the petition or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition. Further, the petition shall be accompanien by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every siich copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own sigiature to be a true copy of the petition. Rule 5 of the 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 of the 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 petitioner shall not be dismissed under this rule Without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner has sought relief of recounting ofvotes in the election r petitionIAnnexure P-lD). The respondent No.1 filed objection seeking dismissal of the petition summarily under the provisions of Rule 8 ofthe Rules, 1995 on the gound that there is no Compliance ofprovisions ofRule 3, 4 or 7 ofthe Rules, 1995. The Collector (respondent No.16) having atforded opportunity of hearing on 4/3/2010, 9/3/2010 and further on 25/3/2010, after having ' considered all the aspects ofthe matter, came to the conclusion that \\ \ \\ \mn the Advocate of the petitioner was not authorised to file election petition and secondly, the election petition and other annexed documents were not duly signed and attested by the election petitioner. Having regard to ,the above stated facts, the election petition was dismissed summaxily under Rule 8 ofthe Rules, 1995 for want of compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1995. It is indisputable that the election petition was not attested by the petitioner on each and every page ofthe election petition, except it was duly signed by the election petitioner on the last page of the petition. Thus, the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 3 and 5 ofthe Rules, 1995. Having considered‘the case from all angle, this Couit is of the View that there is no irregularity or infirmity in dismissal of the election petition vide impugned order dated 6/4/2010 (Annexure P-13). The contention of the petitioner that he should have been given one more opportunity to file fresh election petition under the scheme of election deserves to be rej ected as there is no provision for gaming an opportunity after dismissal of the petition to file a fresh petition. Thus, the election petition of the petitioner was rightly dismissed under Rule 8 ofRule, 1995 summarily. 10. In View of the foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/— l Ashok Satish K. Agnihotri l W Judge ,t’,»