6 (p e 8©nch c^' lc^7 Bi THE HIOl COURT OF CaiHATriSGARH ATBILASKm 1WT8IT PETITION j C | N0. M 1 Vb OE> 2011 PETITIOirEEt iOieduram PateJ S/0 Shri Chacaar Sin^i Patel^ aged abaut 44 jears R/0 ViJlage - Kashibahra^ Thaxia aaid Tahsil - Pithoura^ District- Malaa^miund (C.G4. ..^ '••/ RESPOMDBKTS vsassus 1. 1 •*»»» ^•^^ ^l^" 2: ^ym^3^ :'^ '" ^ ^^ T^. '^^ '^ ^' ^ ^ %••' / |&.|F:IJ^X^%4.%1 ^^^y '^fi^ fi'-'-.. • .-,•-'' 3.' Yugal Kishore Yadav S/o> Gsiiesh Brasad Yada^ X/0 Village - Kashibahra^ Thaaa and l^li^l - IWMnsrsi, Di^trict- Mabasamcund (C.G4- Shymiisunder Yaday S/o. Late Shri Prahlad Yadav R/0 ViUage - JKaBlaibahra^ TJiaixa aiid Talisil Kthoura^ DiBtrict- Maliasamiind Rettinung. Officer^ Panchayat Electioii Officer, Kthoura, Distt.- Mahasaiaund (C.G4 Sub Divisdoiial Officer (Revenue)/ Prescribed Of&cer , PitlioursL, Distt.- Mahasainund (C.G^ WR1T PET1TIOBI UUIID^IAR'HC^^ 226 ^227 OF THR COSSTITVJTlOJa OFJ3SQ1A, ^ ^. HTGH COIJRT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BT1 ASPIJR WRTT PETITION fQNo. 418,8 .of2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENT8 Khedixram Patel, 'VERSTJS Yygal Kishora Ya.aa.v & Others. WRIT PETITION LJNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITm'ION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Ne Siiri Satish K. Agnihoto-i, J. Present: Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate tor the petitioner. Sliri P.K.Bhaduri^ Panel Lawyer for ili^ Slale. None for the respondent. No. 1 a.nd 2, despite ser^iee ofnotice. ORDER (Passed on IP^da^^ofNovember, 2011) 1, By this petition, the petitioner t.o qiiash tiie order dated 22.07.2011 (Amiexiire P/l) passed by llie Siib Divisional Ofiicer (Revenue) Pithora, District Mahasamimd^ a.nd conseqiiently^ ;the election netition filqd by the respoiident No, 1, •may also be dismissed, 2. Lea-med counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits tlia.t the leamed Eiection Tribusial has decided the matter withoirt framing issiies a.nd •without affordmg proper opportiimty to the •parties to 'a.dduce evideuces, dociiments, thiis^the impugiied order m bad m law. 3. Shri Sahii relies on a decisions ofthis Court rendered m Parvatia v. Padmini & Other^ and Shyam Ratan y. Siyaram & Other/ m support of his submission t.hat no election petition can be decided without fra.ming issues and examming the witisesses prodiieed by the parties, : 2005 (2) CGL.J 335 :WP No.4270 of2005 (dedded on 19-11-20085 ^ 4, Shri Bhadim, leamed Panel La.wyer appea.rmgibr the StMe fairly stibmite that the impiigned order suffers from deficieiicy and infirmity on a.ccoimt ofthe above stated reasons. Thiis, tlie sa.me may be quashed and fiirther the matter may be remitted back to the election tribmial for deciding the same in accordance with. law afier jframmg issues and examming witnesses properiy. 5, Leamed coimsel for the parties fiirther submit that a stipiilated time may be fixed for takmg deeision ofthe electiori petition in view of the fact thaf. there has been a delay'on a.ccoimt ofthe impugned decision, whieh could not sustam m Ihe eye oflaw. 6. Having regard to the fa-cts situation ofthe a.nd considering the submissions ma.de hereinabove, as the prmciple of la.w is well settled t.hat no election pet.ition ca-n be decided tmaily without fmming proper issues a.nd exammmg witnesses, ifprod'aced by the parties, the impugned order dated 22,07;201i (Aimexiire P/l) is qiiashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tribimai to restore in its origmal file and decide the case iii accordaiice with law, as aforestated, 7. It is expedieiit a,nd proper fo direct the Election Tribimal to consider a.nd decide t.he case afreslx m a.ceorda.nce with law a.jod on its own merite, a.s early as possible prefera.bly withm a period of three months fromthe ctete ofreceipt ofa. eopy of this ordw^ 8,. The petition is allowed to tfae above ext.ent with no order ast.o costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge