EN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CrVILREVISIONNO. 79 / 2006 APPLICANT : ^" ^Jamana Das S/o Tirath Mal Kshtri , aged about 59 years, resident of Bhagat Singh Ward No.l4,Bhata Para ,Tehsil Bhatapara, District Raipur (CG). VERSUS NON APPLICANTS : ^i^'' ^(1> Smt. Sati Jaswani, W/o Kishan Chand A .-''fiy ^i^^Jaswani, resident MaKa Satti Ward, ^'K^" ..-* !1 Bhatapara, Teshil Bhatapara, District ^ ^K^ ._. Ralpur(CG): ^)_ Election Officer (Sub Divisional ^ Officer), Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Raipur (CG). ^ CIVIL REVISION UNDERSECTION \^^- ec-z") i- A 5L^ 0^- C-^. /HOMidpHtTl'eS ^ C^ T ^T^I ^T fqii<^ iW^IT^T^'RW ..^ <n*i^ii fl»*ii<»» ~3~5E[ ^|HH<LI, ^Tll<rl^l<o, f^<ni<H^< ^(\^o.9^^_ ^.....s.7..»..^..'...:..^........................^200 a^Fi T^^ C^f3^) ^mw^teT^i^T SB:HON. ^ SIiri Sunil Sahu, Adv| Sliri Shaileiidra Dubeh None for responde.nt Heard on admissiou. The iiistaiit revision U 2006 passed by Aclditioual Petition No. 1/2005 whet petition preferred by tlie al ground of non-compliaacc contaiaed iii sub-section 3(; the applicaiit has not dep< treasury aad also not deposited Rs. 100/- Shri Sahu, leamed c< by mistake, only Rs. 100/" the niistake caii be cured. Leamed Additional Dj material on record and aftei applicant and relyiag ou tlij -v- Kisliore -^- <=bi^id4^ ^Wdl* ^f fe^ <M^K ^T^TfW^TI^T K.,A_GARWAL for the applicant. r, Adv. for respondent No. 1. ^o. 2. directcd against the order dated 8-2- pistrict Judge, Bhatapai'a in Electioii :eby and whereunder tlie .electioii ppMcazit has becn .dism.issed on tlie of the maiidatory provisions as !) ofSection 20 of Municipality Act as )sitecl. Rs. 200/" in. fhe Goveminent ai3|iiexed tlie saxae but he Iias buly [uiisel for the appMcaiitsubiziits that iwas deposited by the applicaat ajid ^trict Judge OD.. a close scrutioy of fhe. 1 hearmg the subniissiou inade by tlie decisions m the cases of aad otlsers (AIR 1973 SC 2464), l^ate of M.P. (1985 JLJ Bhbtt ?n^h< ^^ ^"U^ <T^-Tf^N—FS/95—11 /2008-1,00,000. 3H^y^T f^il<=r» ^W 3H^T »i*ii<3|» ^l II '*», ^ *ii*iCTr wiicft ^^T ^i^Ki-4, y>Ti1-y<t<o, [otdH^'!. ^-hJlo. 6^/oG ^I^T TT^T ( ^?^^) I^TW^ft^^l^T 644), Nagjee -v- Deepa (lc SCrishaa Gopa! -v- Kuaj B: Bhaswar 141), held that tiie appMcaiit has not deposit^ of the Section 20 of the Act is After considermg the si considered opniion tliat the / dismissed the election com.pMaiice of m.aiiclatory Municipality Act The revision has no disinissed. eledtiou petiti^n nlerit The same liable to be aad is' cnH?<yi*iit *iw<nT ^f fs^ <Fsi^i< ^ 3TfiiH 3T1^?T t95(2) MPWN 248 Page 345) and Ihari aad others (1998 (2) Vidhi petitiou is not mamtamable as [d ofRs. 200/- aad non-compMaiice Ifatal and dismissed the petition. kbmission of Shri Sahu, I am ofthe ^dditional District Jiidge has rightly filed by the petitioner for 110.11- provision of Section 20 of tlie Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge ^w^^*? i^^ri^r<T^-ri^f^—IS/95—11/2008-1 ,00,000.