^ !IGH C' W.P.(C.)No.2446of2010 PETITIONE ishwari Bai, W/o Dhruw Kumar Sinha, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Bhatgaon, Tahsil and Distrlct Dhamtari -Versus- RESPONDENTS: 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary Department of Panchayst, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG) Jamuna Bai, W/o Rajendra Sahu, aged about 45 years, R/o Viilage Bhatgaon, Tahsii and District Dhamtari (CG) Sela Pandey, W/o Harihar Prasad Pandey, aged about 42 years, R/o Viiiage Bhatgaon, Tahsii and District Dhamtari (CG) 4. 5. N.L. Bhoi, Returning Officer, Panchayat, Viliage Dadhi, Post Dadhl, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (CG) Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) Sub DivislonaS Officar, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, (CG) Present Shri C.R. Sahu,counsel forthe petitioner. S.hri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State. |iKl!s_Bench: Hon'bie Shri Dhirendra Mishra. J. (14-6-2010) 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petltion against the order dated "13-4-2010 of Coilector, Dhamtari, passed in Revenue case No.8/A- 89(21 )/2009-10 whereby the revision of the petitioner against the order ofthe Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamtari dated 10-3-2010 (Annexurs-P/2j has been rejected. ii;tSSS 'si8-- •^J '§» 'i 2. From the pleadings in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner contested for the post of Panch fro.m Ward No.9 of Gram Panchayat Bhatgaon. The result of the election was declared on 28-1-2010. Being dissatisfied with the result, the petitioner moved an appeal under Sectlon 91 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam (for short 'the Act') before the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamtari (Annexure-P/3) and prayed for quashing of dec!aration of e!ection and fresh declaration of the eiection after recounting. The above appeai was dismissed by the SDO and the revision against the order of SDO has been further dismissed by the impugned order. Baive 3. T'nus, from perusal of the documents available with the record, it is evident that the petitioner instead of preferring election petition as per the provis'ons of Section 122 of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, chose to Ti!e an appeal under Section 91 of the Act, which was adm ted!y not maintainable in view of the specific provisions of the Act. 4. !n the result, the petition is d°void of substance, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge