w— IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ^ILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.28 ^S~~ /2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^y^* ^ •^^^ ^r:^ MEERA BAI PATEL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WIFE OF SHRI KANYA KUMAR PATEL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST GOVARSINHA, WARD N0. 15, TAHSIL SARANGARH, DIST. RAIGARH (CG) VERSUS MONGRA YADAV, AGE'D ABOUT 50 YEARS, WIFE OF SHRI LALIT RAM YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST GOVARSINHA, WARD N0. 15 TEHSIL SARANGARH, DISTT. RAIGARH (C.G.) RETURNING TEKESHWAR ADDITIONAL .INCHAC^E5CC"°''.. Co.^itu^"^!;^eral (^5?" OFFICER, SHRI SINGH THAKUR, TAHSILDAR BARAMKELA, BLOCK BARAMKELA, TAH. SARANGARH, DISTT. RAIGARH (CHHATTISGARH) ^ PRESCRIBED OFFICER, SHRI BUNDELSINGH MAITRI (TEACHER), BLOCK SARANGARH, POLLING CENTRE N0. 5 (GABARSINGHA) BLOCK BARAMKELA TAH SARANGARH, DISTT. RAIGARH (CG) SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TAH. SARANGARH, DISTT. RAIGARH (C.G.) / ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, The Petitioner respectfully submits as under:- HFIC5T ^mq? \3-CTT-qi'qi04|,U>Tll^<l<o,Roi<<iy<< rf^..{A>:.I::.^.^......., 311^51 CR^ (>jcli*j|e|^) 3:IT^$T<inRFTt€p ^TT3TT^^T^+li<h ll< "T^ ^RTTW^Tf^TW^^T 22-8-2005 courl^l learhed Heard Mr. Roop Ndk, The petitioner has prefer^ed 227 of the Constitution of| correclness of order dated 1] Officer/ Sarangarh, i.e. Specift^d 89/04-05, whereby the opplication of the petitioner for| the wJtne^se^ of respondcnt N4 counsel for the petitioner and th|e Brief facts leadin9 to respondent No.l chaSlenged the^ <5ram Panchayat: ^bersingha was fixed for evidence of resp< 6-2005 reveals that on that witness was present, however^ wsre not present. Aftar respondent No.l herein ond recording the evidence in ex-pfl^te, 2005. Thereafter, one K.L. Pa-lel petitioner herein and filed an requessting therein "rtiGt as coun^el <pi^Io<Ttvi <ii+ioT^'I^^£l^Ri^-di^ ^3lf^T3n^5T for the petttjoner. ttsis writ petition under ArticJe 226/ India/ questionin9 the l^olity and 1-7-2005 passed by the Sub Divisionai Officer in Election Petition No.21/A- Specjfied Officer rejected the Ipermitting her counsel to cross-examine cj,l/ who were cxomined in thc absence of petitjoner on 27-6-2005. fi!in9 of this writ petition are 1+iat eiection of the petitioner as Panch of ^nd on 27-6-2005 the election petition hcient No.l< Perusal of order dated 27- ^ respondent No.l along with her one the petitioner herein and her counssl for some. tim&/ 1+i& eviciencs of her witness was recorded ahd afner ^ the matter was adjourned for 11-7- -(el, Adwcate. OtppeQred on behalf of the <|ppiication before the Specified Officer for the petitioner herein was bussy in d|iy w4i+ing <-p<3^te SP/FS/2005-20,000 •1 ?:1 XI-HC-78 TPI^T^^TT^ ^Twj'^IHIrt^,yTi1^i<i<?, Riowyx .t'L:).:y.:.^.s.^.^. 3IT^?T IWP (*^qi^q<g) Wl200-^ 3Tr^^T^TRril<h ?R2n3ii^?Tg5»rra? TT" S^TTW^Tft^ 3I1^^T -A one thelsQme p^titi< befdrc some other Court, thereforje, respondent No.l herein oaid ^< appjication was fixed on 11-7-2( orcier/ th& said apptication was appiiaition is not justifjed as Learned counse^ for the petitioner was busy in some oth| examine the witness, therefor^, causc for romainin9 absent recording the evidence, The} Specified Officer ought to have The ground, which has appliaxtion, is 1+iat if 1+ie applic<| the eiection petition will be Officer without ascertaining petstionerwas busy in some othfi^r If this order is ailowed to exist, parties, as counsel for 1+ie petil which the petitioner should not election petitioner and her witne^ Specified Officer was to order impugned cannot be tcrmec|as <bl^I^41vt ^l^'^ffe^ ^RJI^IX ^3rf^T^1^^T ^ an opportunity to cross-examine |er witness be given. However, that p05 and on that day vide the impugned ^ejected on th^ 9round that allowing the will delay the proceedings. ^titioner 5ubmit5 that 05 coun^^l for 1+ie &r Court, therefore, he couJd not cross-0 ;, there was sufficient and reasonable the Specified Officer at the time of hefore, in the circumstances, iearned dtowed the Gpplieation. been mentioned for rejecting the (ition is allowed then the proceedings of t|jnnecessarily deiayed, Th@ Specified factas to whether counsel for the Court or not, rejected 1+ie application. |then that wili amount to injustice to the |oner was busy in some other Court for be penalized. At the most, when the IES left the Court, proper course for the them with cost. Therefore, the judtified, ~~~——— thle compe|i^xte XI-HC-78 vjT?q<-qiqioq,valtl<l<?, Roi^l^ *11*1WI^»TT^ j ^2005^ 3iT^9T 'q^cp (^e|ijc|<£{) 3n^CT^rRTi ^iT^n^^T^Tra? Soma // y g^TTSn ^tRd CT^^T <PI<|[w<Tll +11*1oT^'fc^l xfvi^-$IK ^3lf^T3n^5T Issuance of notice to t^ie respondents would further deJay the trial of the election petition an^l the order impugned prima facie q)pears to be peryerse, as such, I con^ the respondents, and allow this imposing a cost of Rs.500/- ider it cppropriate not to issue notice to [writ petition in th<& inter&st of justice. by |?n the petitioner and quash Ifie order impu9ned, Accord^Iy, the or^ler impugned ia$ quashed, The petitioner herein wili be entitled to crosl Rs.500/- cost to respondent N^ stand. The petjtion^r may ap^ aJready fixed and pcry 1+ie co\ i-examine the witness only after paying >.l, failing which 1+ie order impugned shdl ^ear befor<s the trial Court on the date it However, if respondent No.l feels a99n^v^d by -Hiis order, then h^ will be at liberty to opproach 1+iis Court by filing application for modifiaat'ion of this order. r With the observations stonds disposed of. ConsequentJy, M.(W.)P.N4 and directjons aforesaid, the petition Parties are entitled for ce^rtified copy of 1+?is order. 3219/2005 ateo stands disposed of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge