F K ^^ H5GH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH. BSLASPUR WP,_LC1_NO._5074/2010 PETmONER RESPONDENTS Jaswant Singh S/o Shri Ramchandra aged about 21 years, R/o Village- Gamharia, Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Nageshwar Singh, S/o. Shri Bhangi Singh, Aged about 29 years, 2. Aliyar Singh, S/o. Roga aged about 60 years, 3. Ramdeo Ram S/o Shri Rowan, Aged about 70 years, 4. Laimohan Singh, S/o Shri Ramdeo, Aged about 21 years. Aii above are R/o. Village- Gamharia, Janpad Panchayat, Ramchandrapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 5. Gorakh Nath Mishra, Head Master, Assist. Biock Education Office, Bairampur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 6. Ghanshyam Pandey, Shiksha Karmi Varg-2, Middle Schooi, Chandaura, Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 7. Malik Sas Lakra, Shiksha Karmi Varg- 3, Primary Schoo!, Maheshpur, Janpad Panchayat, Balrampur, DIstt.- Surguja (C.G) 8, Binay Kumar Yadav, Shiksha Karmi Varg-3, Prima^ School, Korwapara, Janpad Panchayat, Rarnchandrapur. Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 9. The Subdivisionai Officer (Rev) Ramaujganj Distt. - Surguja (C.G.). WRiT PEimON UNDERARTSCLE 228 OF THE CONSTITUTSON OF INDJA Appeararice: jvtf. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Pandey, Acivocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.9. p- W.P.ICl N0,5074/2010 ORAL ORDER (01.02.2011) SUNJLKyMARSINHAJ. Heard finaiiy with the consent of learned counset for the parties. The petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Gamhria, Janpad P-anchayat, Ramchandrapur, Tahsil Ramnujgan] Distt. Sarguja (C.G.). The eiectlon of the petitioner was cailed in question by respondent No.1 by fiiing an election petition U/s 122 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993. in the said eiection petition, the petitioner filed an application under order 7 rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of the petition on the ground that there was non-compiiance of sub ruie (2) of ruie 3 of Chh-attisgarh Panchayat (Eiection Petition, Corrupt Practice & Disquaiification for Jvlembership). rules, 1995. By the impugned order dated 15.07.10, the respondent No.9/ Sub Divisionat Officer after hearing arguments on the said appilcatlon, directed that the application filed by the petstioner under order 7 ruie 11 of C.P.C. shail be decided at the time of fina! disposal of the election petition. Mr. Bhupendra Singh, learned counset appearing on behaif of the petitloner, argued that the Eiection Tribunal erred in law in directing for deciding the appiicatlon fited under order 7 rule 11 of C.P.C. at the time of final disposal of the election petition. Hls submission is that the said appiication would have been decided at t'ne threshoid because if the application is allowed, the entire election petition would be rejected. Qn the other hand, Mr. VX. Pandey & Mr. Shashank Thakur, iearned counsel appearing cn behalf of respondent No. 1 & 9, opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the respondent No.9. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ petition. Ruie 11 of Ruies 1995 prescribes the procedure before the specified Officer. Sub-mje (1) of Ru!e 11 provides that subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shail be enquired into by the specified Officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure appiicable underthe Code of Civii Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits. Therefore, there is no dispute that the provlsions. of C.P.C., are made appllcabie in the election petition filed U/s 122 of Chhattisgam Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993. '•^ ^..-^ :/• ^ W.P.(C) N0.5074/2010 in case of A2har_HussasnJVs Raliv Gandhi. 19BB. fSuop) SCC. 315. the Supreme Court hetd that the Court has power to reject an eiection petition summarily under the provisions of the CPC. The purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningiess and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court and the concerned Sitigants are relieved of the psychological burden of the litigation so as to be free to foliow their ordinary persuits and discharge their duties. There is greator reason v/hy in a democratic set-up, in regard to a matter pertaining to an eiected representative ofthe people which is likely to inhibit him in the discharge of his duties towards the nation, the controversy is set at rest at the earliest if the facts of the case and the law so warrant. Since the court has the power to act at the threshold the power must be exercised at the threshotd itself in case the court is satisfied that it is a fit case for the exercise of such power and that exercise of such power is warranted under the retevant provisions of iaw. !n case on hand, when the application was fiied under order 7 rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of the Election petition at the threshold on the ground that there was non-compliance of sub-rule (2) of Ruie 3, which leads to dismissal of the eEection petition under rule 8 of the above rules, it was incumbent on the TrEbunal to decide the said application at the threshotd and not to teave it for decision along 'with the election petition. If the apptication filed for rejection is kept in abaince tiiE the final decision of the etection petition and uttimately, the election petition is dismissed on the same ground, the very purpose of keeping such provision in the statute book wouid render frustrated. On the above ground, the impugned order passed by the Sub DivJsiona! Officer/ Speclfied Officer/ respondent No.9 cannot be sustained. In the resu!t, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 15.07,10 (Annexure-MP-4) is hereby quashed. The Sub Divisiona! Officer/SpecJfied Officer (Respondent No.9) is directed to dispose of the application filed under order 7 ruie 11 of the C.P.C. at first, and then, it required, to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. There shaii be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge Rahul