^lf^ ^oior- ^ an^T^iif^ih; CTKfT STT^T Sh+liqi 3^T '*<WI<ft't{, ®Tfl'M'|iS,(s|t?llti^<. NINdl *Nleb ^f (^) ^fclDJo^- ^.............,........................................^.^ ^^ ad^CT iRra? (ij^q^t?) ?'Rnwofw SII^T SciiklRam, S/o Kondurom. 38 vears. R/o vil Nend^ur^ Teh. Jagdaipur, &istt. SQstrar' (CS). RESPON&ENTS 1. 2. State Secn Raipu Rsinu larisia '..fsi"^ tLoj Jaga (Writ Petition under Ar+ic 28-1-2008 Shrs P-cfull Bharct, counsei Shri yoshwant Sinch. Dv. No.l, 3 and 4. As psr the office report nol his brother. None aooea'3 on behal Hecrd Issrned counset for tlt (iii*it^T<i1'ri +ii*i<;iT ^'fe1^ <f*ai'^.i< ^affipT sii^i -Versus- of Chhattisaarh, Throuah the tar'y, Panchcyat Depar-tment, (naritraiay'a, Mourvs, S/o Manalu, R/o vill. Nandpura. Jagdaipur, uistt. Baster (Cs5). otlector. Specified Officer cum S.D.O. (Rev), lipur, Distt. Bastar- (C<5). 227 of the Constitution of India) e Shn Justice L.C. Bhadoo For- the petitioner. • Ac^vocats &ener'al for the State/respondents ice of respondent No.2 hos been served on f of rsspondent Mo.2; thouah served. le oarties. . .sfiSEisra aB&iceipt.u g assi^tsss aoHaa XI-HC—78 si^rjev Iti-ii* W 3(1^1 Stlliqi ^ '•3^ 3^f ^|<<|^, ©Til^'Ko,(i|<>')l+llj,< MIMdl *MI* 3(I^?T T13TO (4<l|t-j«)<4W) 200 ?^ITWdfelCT^T The oetitioner. who con'tested the election for the bost of Sarpanc of viilaae Nandpura and was eie^ted by a mo('9in of 9 votes and in re-countin by a margin of 3 votes, hos preferred this writ petition under Articie 227 the Constitution of Indi'a, dated 30-3-2006 ahereby thj oetition of r-esaondent Ho.2 he+ein was set aside. Agcinst whicN bsfore the Additiona! Coliecto< 17-8-2007. 2) Brief fsicts ieading to f| herejn and resoondent No.2 Sar-panch of Gfom Panchayst the end of the countinq. the msrgln of 9 votes. Election resporident No.2 hereiri by fi! authoritv on the oround that on| placs in presence of the countij favour the oetitioner hepesn rsmain oresent at the countinq bensfit of darkness of niaht, oetitionert wers daclored as inl the sosts of Jonocd Panchmct ^)iqftTqh ln^lT ^f^Zt •rf^R^ ^affimai^t Drescribsd euthoritv allowed the eieetio iin and the eiection of ths petitioner here the petitloner her-ein preferred an apbe who disraissed the same vide order date Sing of this petition cre that the petitione helrein contested the eiection for the post Nbndoura in the month of January, 2005. A fcetitioner herein was decitTed elected by t>f the petitioner herein wss chailenaed f ir1q an election petition before the prescribe 20-1-2005 the countina of votes was to to inl/a ome 1 unauthorized oersons were aliowed piace of booth Nos.27, 28 & 29. Tckinq t' ie vclid votes of rsspondent No.2 (eiecti lid orid the Betitioner herein wcs declar eiectsd. It WQS further mentioded thot ct the oo!iir,a booth Nos.28 & 29 Member & Zila Panchayat Member 498 & 3 XI-HC—78 3:5ET -^WWi, VnS)wi6, Rjcil'tiy HWvif 'y.vss; ••••-•---•-••---•-•-•-•---••^ ^QQ 3ff^?r ^aw (y<<[-t«i^») 3ii^i?nft;n»" WIIS'^T'^^Ri- WITW:Htet 3II^?[ •^r<irf<?f<ft'f *iw^i '^T^^ <f^f4^l< ^ sifaxT dfl^?i votes were cost, whereas for- 377 votes were cast. Ther-efor No.2 os iwciid and on accountj Nos.28 & 29 'm resoect of th< Janpsd Pcnchsyat Membsr & Z| petitioner' herein wcs dedore^ re-countina of voies wcs refus^ the petitioner herein by fllin<j leveiled by resoondent No.2 her{ fhe post of Sarponch on -these booths 5G ?e, bv declo'inG the valid vo'tes of reSBonc |of differ-erice of votes cost ct pol'inq bo post of Sa'Ba'ich on the one hanci and la Panchayat AAemfaer on the other hand,1 eiected by a moroin of 8 votes ond t fcd. The said election eetition was r'esiated [•a reply, in which he denied the atlegatio lein. 3) After hearina both the possed by the prescribed auth| order'esi for "e-countim of votl 10-1-2006. On 10-1-2006 re-c| by the crescribed authority in re-countino the petitioner he herein secured 621 votes re-counting, the votes of the 626 wher'eas the votes of to 623. Evsn aftsr rs-countinal of 3 yotes. However, leamed ths ground. thot ct s»!!!no bt Parichayct Member A Ziia Panl jvhereas for the post of SaroA »a*ties,as reveaied from iserusai of the orde »'itydated 30-3-2006, on 20-12-2005 it »a ss and the date for re-countino was fixed Oi brder dated 30-3-2006, it shows! thot befope •sin secur-ed 630 votes & respondent No.2 ^hereos 111 votes were rejected. After bstitioner- herein were rsduced from 630 to r'espijndent No.2 herein were increiBed by 2 t.e. 621 the petitioner her-ein was leadina bv a mar'cin srescribed outhority set aside tiie eiection on ^oth Nos.28 <& 29 for the post of Janpsd :hoyat Member 498 & 373 votee were cost. inch 500 & 377 votes were ccst. Therefore, 3^ET rfii<ii<?i<i, ®Tfl*rie,fs|i?ii'yy ^row ~yw 'W^ 200 sii^'i ?n R;-iid. WT3IIi^' an^OT're^ (^'tiflw. TCiIWHft(T3D^[ •»n(fi«Il-l>ll>lfii ti1s<S> tht^K ^aifinsn^r the sbove difference was founij in the votes, which were cast for SQC! on these two booths shows thb irrequlocity tvas committed ir! the eli procsss. Thsrefore, the p feSBoridsrst No.2 hsrein found fo be correct and occordinoly the eiecti the pstjtioner herein was set ssTlde 4) Perugai of the order dat. the prescribed aithority 'isex lecrned orescribed authoritv Chhcttisaarh Panchayats (E| &tssua!ification for AAembershij rtfcd 30-3-2006 shows that the order oasa \fescis illeasi ond perverse for the reasor hjis not comoiied with the Ruies II <& 12 o lection Petitions, Corrupt Practices t) Rules, 1995 (forshcrt 'the Rutes, 1995 i) Rule II of the Ruies, 199B eroisdaes tl "11. Pr-oeeduR ..-(1) S every election specifiea offic the oroci Proeedur^,190 Provided a'pecified offil substonce of him." Rule 12 of ths Ruies, 19^ "12. Parties the duty of t^) the date fixd lint rcised the election ostitione bject to the pr-ovisions of thess fuies, petition shall be enquired into by the er ss neariy, as meiy be, in accordcnce ;dure appficabie under the Code of Civil 1, to the trial of sults. I'hat it shsll only be necess<ry for the :er to make a memorandum of 'the he evidence of aiy witness examined by '5 envisaqes thot; •c produce their Nfi-tnesses.-It shoil be e partl^s to prodUC^ theiir' witnssses On for evidencs. and they shci! not be XI-HG-r78 —^wv^ 3^cf '^11*11<?><1, »Tfl<H'l(o, R|<'11'9^< Wfvft •yw "^ 200 aiitSOT lras? (ijcil-i^<i8T) sn^i?ir1?=nsr 'tPII3''^;^,^H? 'renw ^ifer aii^i q)l<lfoqhl tIFraf '£f^^1^•t.Rtf^R ^? 3fRFT ofl^l sntitled to an a<j.iournment for non-attendance of their nTnsSses. I 1 Provided tijiat the specified officer may, at his discretion, orde| on the necesscB^ by ths porty cor^ 7) In the iiaht of the above oresent Gase, ofter fi!ina the rteblv bv the Detitioner herein. the specified \ officer- was requlr'ed to frcme''the issues wher-e the oeirties wiare. Gt varience in their pleadinq. Thereafter- in by resiMndent No.2 (election pe lorder to substantiate the alleaations leveled Itstioner) in the election petition, he ouaht to have been aliowed to adduce Ihis evidencs cnd thereafter the petitioner' herein ouqht to have been ciioufed to cdduce his evidence in or'der to rebut the ctieqstions. Thereafter- th^ specified officer wos r-eauired to qive his substanticte h'ss ailegations rec onainal authoritv. petitidner') arsd even ofteit secured 626 vot^s Aie to securel the 'issue of summons to ttiy witness orocess fee and costs being deoosited semed.' ie9a! position, if we exismine ths facts of the findins whethsr the defeated ctindidQte ("esoondent No.2 herein) was etoie to ordinq the irreqularities committed at the time of counting or at the poilirjg stations No.28 & 29. Without resching to the conciusion thct cny i"re9ujai( of polling, ths prescribed cuthorj ity wios committsd in countirsg or at the tirne tv.dtowed re-countino of votes. i»ta wbs elscted bv a mar'ain of 9 votes at the re-countina, cfter the order of pr-ascribed whereas r-ssoondent No.2 herein (siection 623 votes. OnSy 2 votes were increassd. cou^tina remcined unchtmged. This fact itseif x][-aGs£78 ,jy^31^. ^-t-^ •'%, i^: iSihs..>. '^^^^^. '^af^® & "1S '^KSS?.8''' sv^ss w h-u* TTSff 3TT^T ^tff^ 3^T '^W{<ft<i, ^nIlWW, Rrtltiy Nltidl sh^leb sn^?r Taw (ij<iif^«i^isT) 200 wirar'Bfta sn^i deraolishes tiie alleoations ieve! thot taking the benefit of dark SBecjified CitSt deciarsd invalid. Learned time, mereh/ on the surmises difference of votes cast for tl Panchavat Member on the one hfcn poi!ing station Nos. 28 & 29, he of Sarpanch nsor'e votes were cast for the oost of Jsnpad Pank 498 & 373 at the same poSlind irreguiwity was committed snd ieaci evidence r'egardinfl ths How 'earned prescribed outhor'i|ty best known to him only. 9) Mereh/ on ascount of three posts, no inference can the time of poSlinq or thersaftet Brocess. The eiection Betitx alleqations in the eiection pe|i sstabligh those cileoations by inference of srTegularity cannot) in fsvour of petitioner herein wt poiiing officers for castir^ o'l <*>i<4^<ili ^in^l* ^f^sl' <f^l^,l<. ^sffgiraiii?! td by r-esoondent No.2 in the election petition kess the valid votes of respondent No.2 were Officer did not stop at that point of kS conjectures cnd mer-ely on the basis of |e post of Jonpcd Panchayat AAember & Zila (snd ond votes cast 'm respect of SCT'panch at lumped to the conclusion that oS for the post i.e. SOO & 377 in compn'ison to the votes fchayst Member & Zi!a Psnchayat Member i.e. stotions, this difference shows thot soms Iset cside ths election whereas there wss no of irrequiffl'ity st the tims of pollinq. jumped to the conctusion, ths reasons are abbve difference of votes oolled in respect of i|ie drcawn that irreqularity was committed (ri- in order to establish irrequiaritv in e!ection oifeer WGS r'equired to first clieqe specific rttion cnd thereafter he WIK reouired to leading legai cogent evident without uAiich be drcavn. It is not a caae whera votes csst ire more than the votes iasued to the voters votes. 1^^^^^^^S5X^^Q^^ XI-HG—78 ..•^^^•^-^^ 7v3S ^mv^if, •a-Aw'w, w^wy. 3^1 _^T Ri-V^ WII3"s>*;^iR? •V^ 200 an^?r 'vw ( TRIWflfel 311^1 cb1-llT<yl4t''l t11^cif^f^%l <^l^l< ^T'SjRpT Sff^T ^- 10) It is iust oosslble that (i voter to whom 3 ballot oooers were issued one for the post of Sarpsnch, o(ie for the postof Janpod Ponchayat Member' pcst of Zj[a Panchayat Meniber, may not have cast his vote in res&ect of Janpsd Panchoyst Member & ZiiQ Panchayst Member ond had cast his vote in respect of t feiection cetitioner) adduced ei cast for the post of Saroanch w^re incfeosed on account ofsome irreqularity, without aiy moteriai availablel r'eQOr'ding commissioii of irreg prescr'ibed outhority oiwht not comraission of the ifreqularities. 11) For the foregoing reason authority cannot be susteined. ierver-se. 12) In the result, the petit) orescribed authoritv dated 30 17-8-2007 oassed bv the Additid ie post of Sarponch. Unlsss respondent No.2 idsnce to ths effect that nuniber of yotes on record to substantiate the al!eQOtion les in elsction orocess. ieomsd to hsve Jumped to the conclusion r'egeB'ding !, the afopesaid findina of leamed prescribed Conseguentiv. the findinq of the apoeilate bnai Colisctor also cannot be sustained. the Brescrjbed authority dated 30-3-2006 on is cllowed and the order passed by 3-3-2006 and the appellate order dotad noS Colisctor cre qusshed. y ^- 1P' ^•^Q^ y