4 §‘ E‘Kfé‘aw @ MWA gs IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. g5 B /201 1 PETITIONER Applicant RESPONDENTS , 1. (2. (, 3. / Smt Subhadra Nareti, aged about 33 years, W/o Dularsingh ( Wrongly mention as Daughtsr of),By Caste Gond, R/o Village Saver At present R/o Bande Colony, Tahsil Pakhanjore, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker VERSUS Taburam Topa, S/o Milaram Topa Smt. Manglibai W/o Krishna Kumeti Madan Sori, S/o Mohan Sori, All Respondent R/o Village Saver, Gram Panehayat Saver, Tahsil Pakhanjore, Distt. Uttar ,, 4. Bastar Kanker Sub Divisional Officer, (Specified Officer), Pakhanjore Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF‘THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i“§EGH COUQT CF CHHATTESGARH : BRASPUR WRH‘ PET§T§ON (C) Nov 3513 CF 201‘. '@ PETXTIONE_ Sm. Subhadra Nareii ‘Jersus RESg’ONDEN‘KS Taburam Topa é; Oihers {Wrii 9eiiti0n Single under Bench Amde : Hon’bie 225 & Shri 227 Satish of the K. Constitution Agnihofri, J. 0f mdEa) Preseni :— Shri Parag Kofecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn‘ resaondem DNPrajapaii No.1. with Shri M.D.Tarek Ha§den Advocate for the Shn' Shashank Thakur, Pane! Lawyer for the State. QRDER (Passed m th§$ 1.8m day 0f Qctober, 201 1) Heard ieamed counsei appearmg forthe pariz‘es. in the inswnnase. a quesnon is, asto whether. afier resuit of the elecimn has been dectared. the returning offzcer, can entertain an appiicaiion for recouniing 0f vaies. For ihis, me facts with regard 10 the time m‘ deciaration. farmer, when the appiicaiion was entertained, whether the required steps were taken before directing recounting of votes, have to be setiied. The Tribonai without framing issues for seitiing the dispuies, as required under the provisions of ihe Chhahisgar'n (Eieoiion Peiiiions Corrupt Preoiice and Disquaiificeiion for Membership) Ruies, 1995, has dismissed the eieciion pehhon. Learned‘ counsei for the peiiiioner relies on a decisions of this Court rendered in Pan/eiie v, Padm/‘ni & Ofhers7 and Shyam Rare}? v. Siyarem & Ofhers2 in supoori of his submission the: no eieciion petition can be decided wiihoui framing issues and examining ihe witnesses produced by me parties. Having regard io ihe facts siiuaiion of the case, the impugned order dated 38.66.2011 {Annexure W8) is quashed and the matter is remitted beck to the Tribunal to frame proper issues and decide the case after examining the documents and evidenoee, it any, produced bythe parties. in View oi ihe foregoing: it is expedient and proper to direct the eiecticn iribunai to consider and decide the case afresh, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as eariy as possibie. Aocordingiy, the petition is eiiowed to the above extent. No order asto coets. p1 Sd/— 53) e Satish K. Agnihotri Judge