HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR w.P. (C) No. 462/2011 PETITIONER Pila Ram, Son of Late Siyambar, aged 50 years, R/o ViHage~Purkela, Janpad ‘ Panchayat— Lundra, District~$arguja (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chhat‘tisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Deveiopment Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. The Collector. Surguja, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh). 3. Jayant Minj, S/o Shri JR. Bhagat, aged about 37 years: Occupation: elected BDC member, Circle No. 12, vlllage- Uparpodi Janpad Panchayat Lundra, District— Surguja (Chhattisgarh). 4. The Presiding Omcer (Panchayat Election), Lundra, District-Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 5. The Returning Officer/ Tehsildar (Panchayat Election), Lundra, District- Sarguja (Chhattisgarh). WRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for respondents 1 & 2 on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (27.01 .201 1) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA,J. Heard on admission. Petitioner— Pila Ram has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:- 2 W.P. (C) NO. 46212011 1 O. Relief(s) Souqht “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be p!eased to issue notices to the respondents returnabie within early date of hearing. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to decide the election petition vide its Eiection Petition No. 6—A—89/2009—10 (Pita Ram Vs. Jayant Minj & Others) within stipulated period. 10.3 The Hon’bie Court may kindiy be pieased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.4 Cost of the petition.” The petitioner, thus in substance, is praying for issuance of direction to respondent No.2 to decide the Election Petition No. 6-A-89/2009—10 pending before respondent No.2. The petitioner is the election petitioner in the said election petition. The order sheets of the election petition have been tiled as Annexure‘P-2. A perusal of the order sheets would show that the election petition was tiled on 26.02.10 and the respondents have not been served, even after 11 dates which have been fixed by the Election Tribunal. On many occasion, the presiding Officer of the Tribunal was also not available. For the present, this Court is not inclined to issue any specific time bound direction to respondent No.2, therefore, the petition is disposed of at this stage. it is however, observed that the Tribunal would try to dispose of the election petition at the earliest and would try to tix the clear dates in the Election Petition on which the Tribunal intact is available for hearing the matter. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands finally disposed of. Rahul There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge