»SS!''!S£]a^i~~f-. IsJZNaaNOdsaa SHJ, jo savmoiAavd e •app ssn^o aq^ UT psuopusui sy (s)aaNoiAuad SHJ, do sav^n^uavd i VIQNI JO NOIAnj,ISN03 anj, ao AZZ g^^IJ,Hv aaaNn Nouuad xraA t' .;:ii. (•0-3) ^fnSjng •nsTQ '-ind^^s -nsqej, % •S"d '-ing- aS^mA "o/a 'sjesX Sfr ^noqs psSy 'urej{Bdor) uqS •O/YW •BAiremf'By "^uig (•0-0) Bfngjng -nsiQ 'jnd^^ig (-[ng-aSBniA 'es -ou a-tiuaQ SupOA 'JSOTJJO SuTpiss-ij) 'J30TJJO ITBUOISIAIQ ^ •e qng -S ..-' ('O'O) Jndreg 'vJtByj^wa]^ UBM-BL[g •s^'a 'viavsvciadaQ anusAsg 'Are^s-toag :qgnojqj, ilJBgsiUBqqo jo ays-^Q •I ('O'O) BfnSjng -nsiQ 'jnd^^Tg -lisqej, sg •g-d 'jng- 3§^IIIA "o/a 'sjeaA: gg ^noqs psSy PBSBJJ A3Q Uqg -0/AV BJOIJ •;Utg ^-^ .^°. ..^'.-^ _^^,..^' ..f/l.'y. ••'' '••'""...^••cC^'".</" ^^-'•t"^\ y.-..^ ^ sj.NaaNOdsata snsHaA aaNOuuad TTOZ / y,'\Y^ "ON (AZZ) NOIAIASd AIHA andsvaia AV vxavosiivnxHOdo j,anoo HOIH a^a<NOH 3HJ, NI i<LO\ ^~]) Ns HIGhiCOURTPF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETLTION_[227LN0.4448_OF 2011 PETITIONER Smt. Flora RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Saurabh Dangi & Shri Ashish Chaudhari, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 9th day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 to expedite the proceedings pending before him and to dispose of the matter within a period of six weeks. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 28-1-2010 the election was held for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Sur, Tahsil Sitapur, District Sarguja. In the said election, the respondent No.3 was declared as returned candidate. Being aggrieved, the petitioner herein preferred an election petition before the respondent No.2 alleging certain irregularities. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 is not taking any interest in deciding the said issue in spite offiling an application for urgent hearing. Thus, this petition. 4. Shri Dangi relies on several decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it has been observed that there should not be undue delay in disposal of the cases, as the delay defeats the purpose of administration of justice. ' The aforesaid proposition of law, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be doubted. However, the direction depends on facts and circumstances of the !rf 5. Gowri case. Though the High Court should restrain itself from making a direction in each and every matter to decide the same within a stipulated time. However, in the case on hand, it is expected that the application filed by the petitioner for urgent hearing shall be considered by the authority below and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law and on its own merits, expeditiously. It is further expected that the pending matter shall be considered and decided expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. to^AS^ judge