@ b IN THE HON'BLE HI&H COURT OF CHHATrCS^ARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION- 227 N0.7 ^ °/20l0 PETITEONER ^^PPtIWN^r VERSUS ^' Janakram Chauhan, aged about- 55 years, S/o late shri Vishram Chauhan, R/0- Village- Kolaibahal (Jamgaon), Block. Tahsil and District- Raigarh (C.G.) ^ RESPONbENTS 1. ^" <^/ 4^ /^y ^y^ 2. 3. NGN-^PLrWPWj. ^ \'fWW 1 ^ ^ l^ ^hlS^WWf^ffte^ Y ^ff^wutwn^^ ^.^'' ^ tW-AfiP^rm'^i^r 9. '^ The State of Chhattisgarh. Through- the Secretary, bepartment of Panchayat and Rural Welfcsre, Mantralaya, bau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, bistrict - Raigarh (C.G.) The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Prescribed Officer, Raigarh, bistrict - Raigarh (C.G.) The Returning Officer, Voting Centre No. 172 & 173. Block- Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) Sarno Chauhan (Trinath). aged about-53 years, S/6 shri Lakhan Chauhan, R/o- Village- Kolaibahal (Jamgaon). Ratan Chauhan, aged about-48 years, S/o shri Ramnath Chauhan, R/o- Village- Kolaibahal (Jamgaon). Ratanlal Chauhan, aged about-32 years, S/o shri Chaitram Chauhan, R/o- Village- Kolaibahal (Jamgaon). Smt. Gajarmati Chauhan, aged about-50 years, W/o shri Goverdhan Chauhan, R/o- Village- Kolaibahal (Jamgaon). Chandan Singh, aged about-50 yeqrs, S/o late Shri Gajpati Singh, R/o- Village- Kolaibahal (Jamgaon). cT ^ W>Wf^^D-^' .?. 10. Manoj Chauhan, aged about-32 years, S/o shri Gajanand Chauhan, R/o- Village- Kolaibahal (Jamgaon). The Responent No. 5 to 10 are residing at Block, Tahsil and bistrict- Raigarh (C.G.) WRTT PETTTION UNbER ARTICLE - 227 OF THE CONSTCTUTION OF INblA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT •\~\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION f227) No. 760 of2010 : Janakram Chauhan. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Roop Naik, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 4. Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel., Advocate for the respondent No.5. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 20th day of November, 2010) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raigarh, i.e. Election Tribunal, without following statutory provisions of law, vide the impugned order dated 08.02.2010 (Annexure P/l) has decided and dismissed the election petition filed by the petitioner, in respect of election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kolaibahal (Jamgaon), District Raigarh wherein the respondent No. 5 was declared as retumed candidate, without framing the issues and recording evidence ofwitnesses. Leamedcounsel appearing for the respondents fairly submit that no issues were framed nor any witnesses have been examined by the Election Tribunal before deciding the election petition, finally and the statutory procedural requirement has not been complied with. ^. '.,?.-; '%^s^ 3. This Court mParvatia v. Padmini & Others and Shyam Ratan v. Siyaram & Others2 held that no election petition can be decided without framing issues. 4. Again this Court in Balaram Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others after considering various provisions held as under: "9. In the case on hand, there is a material denial of the proposition, as affirmed by the applicant before the election tribunal. Thus, framing of issues and examination of witnesses is necessary before passing the order. The impugned order passed by the election tribunal, it appears to have been passed without complying with the substantial procedure as provided under the provisions oflaw". 5. In view of foregoing, the impugned order dated 08.02.2010 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Election Tribunal to restore in its original file and decide the case, in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. It is expected that the election petition may be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. Amit Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge ' 2005 (2) CGLJ 335 2 W.P. No.4270 of 2005 (decided on 19-11-2008) 3 W.P.(C) No.3573 of 2010 (decided on 31-08-2010)