^ ' Sing?-'^^ ^T In the High Court ofJudicature of Chhatishsarh at Bilaspur .C.G. W.P.No. 4333 2004 ^ Petitioner L x':^ ^'^' ^umari Neeta Jain aged 3^ years Occupation Advocate Daughter of Shri Sajjanmal ,7, Mahavir Nagar, Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. Kumari Saroj Pandey daughter of Shyamji, Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Durg(C.G.) 7 2. State Govemment of Chhattishgarh^Trhough the Secretary, Paryavaran Department, D.K.S., Bhavan^ Raipur (C.G.) / S.Additional Collector, Durg(C.G.) 4. Comissioner, (Assisstant Registrikaran Adhikari) Municipal Corporation, Durg. (C.G.) Writ Petition under articles 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia Respondents ^ .u^^ u^ •^3y^' ^ ^?'0 -'x ^> XI-HC-22 CT^^F Rt<iict»^I^i $ft^i<=f> ^r^^ •+ T5? ^Wt^ ^'H*r^, fa^^t|< NIHWSbNt<si» ^?T^^E% ^:4..^...^ ^^s' sii^^gi^-^? ch^fo4t!li ^itN^^l^t ^fo^K ^^p:l%^ Ldditional Advocate Geueral fbr 17/12/2004 ShnVishnu Kosfha, Cozins^l for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Coii|isel for respondent No, 1, Shri Praoiod Knmar Vermsfc Adclitional Aclvocate Geueral for respondent No.2. Shri Prashant Mishra, respondente No, 3 ajid 4, Heard on admission as well ^s on M.W.P. No.4747/2004. Voters' Ust havmg of t:€spoucl€iitNo, 1 m Warcl No.47 has beeu challenged by flie ^etiuoner 011 tiie ground that respondent No. 1 is not the resicl^nt of Ward No. 47 of Municipal Corporation, Diirg. ObJection of t^e petitioner was heard aad afbcr foUowmg the proper procedure t|ie Registrikaraa Adhikari vide oider clated 04/10/2004, rejecjted the objection. Petitioner assailed tae saaie befoi'e the Appe] Authorily, Upper CoUector, Durg ordcr dated 04/10/2004 passed rejected the appeal. Being aggrieve [late Authority aiid the Appellate on 21/10/2004 confirmmg tiie by the Registrikai^n Adhikari, flby those onlera, petitioner bas up beft?re this Ctourt utider Artide 226/227 of the Consutution of ludia. it is adniitted by|both the paijdes that not only the rLOBitn.ation has been over, but fhe election hsri are to be awaited. Sectiou 441 offlie C.G. Muri|2ipal Corporation Act, relates to also beeu over and only resulte elecuon petition aad Section 441 grounds for declaring election pr n^Biination tol^e void. Therefore, [^^^ ~B of the said Act relates to XI-HC-22 s?n^?r'^r R<lict> 3T(^T sftHicn <if^cl ^- ^ INBB^- + ^ ^) '^ \ s^- 's^t ^Nj<n^/ ^1alwi<o, i®i^s«y 3ffi^r 'q^? ^R^[T9hN|ch '^ 200 ^•^T' 3T?^['F<ITW^f^T -2. nov? the re.inedv is available provisions. At fhis juncture, when AppeUate authority, both, afier ^ffon peutioner aiid after due evaluati4 passed fhe orders, the.re mterfereiice bv tliis Court. Tl petitioner under Arfcicle 226/22|7 liable to be dismissed aiid is In tlie Ught of the afbre{said stands disposed of appeatrs with the petitioner zinder above. the Registnkaran Adhikari mid ^ffordmg proper opportunity to the >n of the evidence on record, have nofhiag substaatial catling for lercfore, tlie petition filed by tlie of the ConstitutiDu of India is dismissed. oider, M.W, P. No.4747/ 2004 acc^rdmgly chl^(<rt4l<1 ^w^S ^ ^S <(^t^i< ^STt^R.SH^F Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge [^^^