$mg€e Sam“ (V g ~(od V JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.4g‘4 é /2o11 W x” Ujal Lala Sahu S/O §hri Tgjram 4) Shiv Sahu S/o Laxman Sahu age about 40 years Chandra Kumar S/ o Surendra Pradhan, age about 39 years Uttra Kenwat S/ o Ghasia Kenwat age about 28 years. Respondent No.1 to 6 are R/o of Village Dansara, Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh (C.G.) 7) Sub Divisional 0$cer (Revenue) Sarangarh, Distriet Raigarh (C.G.) Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (D QNJ, ?\ kw 20W X 5m )3 vii gufm Ward No.13, Gram Dansara, Tah Sarangarh, District Raigarh w: :v‘fcw (C.G.) VER8US RESPONDENTS / 1) Bhagat Ram S/o Haldhar Mali, age about 35 years / 2) Murli S/o Kaleshwar Kenwat age about 42 years 3) Puranlal S/o Nanki Ram, age about 32 years HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 6246 of201 I WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB:N Hon’ble Shri Satish K. A nihotri J. Present: Shrl Mam} Jalswal Advocate for the petitioner NO Shrl 7 Shashank and 8 Thakur Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent ORDER ORAL (Passed on 19 day of October 201 1) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 05.05.2011 (Annexure P/I) passed by the respondent Not 7 and the order dated 29.06.2011 passed by the respondent No. 8 and further, the respondent authorities may be directed to recount the votes polled ‘on 28.01.2010, for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dansara, Tahsil Saragarh, District Raigarh. m 2. Shri Iaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as well as the private respondent No 1 to 6 ~ contested the electlon for the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Dansara The respondent No 1 Violated the model code of conduct and adopted corrupt practice and as a result of which, the petitioner was defeated and the respondent No. l was declared as returned candidate. The petitioner preferred an election petition under section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, but the same was rejected vide order dated 05.05.201 l. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional PETITIONER : Ujal Lala Sahu. RESPONDENTS VERSUS g} Collector, Raigarh, which was also dismissed vide order dated 29.06.201 1. Thus, this petition. On the other hand, Shri Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 7 and 8 submits that the impugned orders, as aforestated, are perfectly valid and no fault can be found with it as the respondent No. 7 has dealt with the allegations of the petitioner, in detail and the petitioner has failed to make out any case for recount of votes. On perusal of the order dated 05.05.2011 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 7, it appears that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh, has clearly stated that at the time of counting of votes, no objection was raised by the petitioner nor was there any evidence with regard to making an application for recounting of votes. Thus, the respondent No. 7 rightly came to the conclusion that there was no basis for directing re-counting of votes and the election petition was rightly dismissed. The order dated 29.06.2011 passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh, also does not warrant any interference as the Additional Collector, has rightly come to the conclusion that no appeal lies under the provisions of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short ‘the Adhim‘yam, 1993 ’) against the order passed by the Specified Officer under the provisions of Rule 25 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. I have perused the election petition filed under Section 122 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, wherein the petitioner has made allegation with regard to other misconduct without specifying the details as WM,,, , g% required in the election petition. In respect of the counting of votes, the allegation has been made that the Returning Officer has not acted properly in accordance with law. The Returning Officer was also not made a party despite the fact that several allegations were made against him, thus the Specified Officer, i.e. the S.D.O. has rightly dismissed the election petition holding that there was no other ground except the ground that there was irregularity in the counting of votes and that too was not supported by any material. Further, there was no pleadings that despite the objection raised by the petitioner, the Returning Officer had not taken any steps for re— counting of votes. Thus, in the facts of the case, when the election petition does not make out a case or did not raise cause of action, the said petition was rightly rejected. 7. The petitioner has further not pointed out any jurisdictional error, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned orders. Thus, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which is legal, just and proper. 8. The Supreme Court, in Abdul Razak (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Others], observed as under: "2I...There have been several other instances in which dijferent High Courts have passed orders in exercise of power under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India disregarding the limitations identified and indicated by this Court in several decisions on the exercise of that power. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts would keep in view the limitations of certiorari jurisdiction/ supervisory jurisdiction and reji‘ain ji'om 12010AIR sew 1414 "\\ Z} deciding the writ petitions filed under Article 226 or petitions/applications filed they under are Article aay‘udicating 227 of the appeals Constitution filed against as if the orders of the lower courts or other judicial/quasi—judicial bodies/authorities. " 9. The ratio laid down in the aforestated case has been referred with approval in Shalini Shyam Snetty & Another v. Rajendra Shankor Patilz. 10. In View of the foregoing and applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, the writ petition is dismissed. W r , Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge 2 (2010) 8 scc 329