^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR /2^? OF 2011 ^•S.'f ^ PETITIONER W.P.C.NO. Yuvraj S/o Kanhaya Satnanii, aged about 30 years, R/o village- Prabhatola, Gram Panchayat Prabhatola, Block-Bodala, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. / T^-/M^ /^y >p ^s^/ ^ '..Sf^; ti' -"-''L .A3 ^ c^ tf' *»,&~y Banwali Ram S/o 'Sukalu, aged about 36 years, R/o village- Riwapar, Gram Panchayat Prabhatola, Block-Bodala, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Govardhan S/o Bhadoo Meravi, aged abou'L 50 years, R/o village- Parsaha, Gram Panchayat Prabhatola, Block-Bodala, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.). y 3. Gautara Lal S/o Gendulal, aged about 46 years, R/o village- Prabhatola, Gram Panchayat- Prabhatola, Block-Bodala, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) 4. Raraadhar S/o Ghasia Satnami, aged about-40 years, R/o village-Prabhatola, Gram Panchayat Prabhatola, Block-Bodala, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) ^ 5. Raraeshwar S/o Chhotku Satnami, aged about-45 years, R/o village- Prabhatola, Grain Panchayat Prabhatola, Block-Bodala, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) , . :/ , c Q/. Election Officer, Pooling Bobth-,_No. 101, Gram Paj-ichayat- Prabhatola, Block Bodala, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) 7. Election Officer, Pooling Booth No. 102, 8. ^ Gram Panch.ayat- Prabhatola, Block- Bodala, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) Returning Officer, Gram Panchayat- Prabhatola, Block-Bodala, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer(R) cum Specified Officer, Block-Bodala, Di&tt. Kabirdham (C.G.) l. State of Chhattisgarh fhrough Collector, Kabirdham, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226^227 OF THE 9. 1 1 -HC-22 311^1 ^r ft-(i«bSf^l sb~H ^ir^I ^' ~S:BI "siiiKnq, anlyis, (sidi'My 3TT^?T TRW 11HCTI gy^gy----—vy-——---^^ i 200 3 CT^T WIW ^lf??T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan 31-01-2011 .K.Sinha, counsel alon^ with Shri Vipin Singh.counsei for the Shri petitioner. Heard on admission. This petition has been filed 22/12/2010. Learned counsel for tt who is the winning candidate, du| submitted an appiication with regard inciuding grounds reiating to, not counsel for the petitioner has an heard bythe Tribunal on 22/12/10, h) Considering the pieadings apprehension, at this stage, appes| records that the Tribunal has petitioner and atiowed the other heard on 22/12/2010 whereafter, the| till date, the orders have not been pa| Under these circumstances, proceedings at this stage, particutari| and the matter is reserved for ordei every contention raised before the with regard to the maintainability oi| considered and decided by the tak^n paflty TribLfrial cht^^ci^ <41^dt'T^ t^t ^-biK ^i'srfigqsn^i Shrivastava. J. by th.e petitioner against order dated |e petitioner submits that the petitioner, dul-ing the trial of election petition, had |to the maintainability on various grounds d^positing the securify amount. Learned apt?rehension that as the matter has been ijs objection may not be decided. and the order dated 22/12/10, his rs to be unfounded. The order ciearly note of the objection raised by the to file reply and the arguments were lcase has been posted for orders, though bsed. am not inclinedto interfere with the when the arguments are aiready heard ijs.it goes without saying that each and ilection Tribunal including the objections the eiection petition are required to be bifrial in accordance with law. ['ctl^tfe^ resra!" -HC-22 -gvf -tllllld^, eiTft'y'lto, fa^Kiy 3& MWM Sh*<!<*l lo.p-co.v^-^^/' •"HT. 20 Stlt'CT^T R-<i<*l Sfl^I sn*li«h^lf^I Deepii •sn^i ^Riwg^ct -^ in case, the order is against petitioner to take recourse to such the iaw. With the aforesaid observation (he petitioner, it would be open for the re|nedy as may be available to him under ^, the petition is dismissed. ctil'4i<vl41l TFTR^Tf ^ '^r3t <i^^!< ^aiPgHsn^T SdA : . ®SflnindraMohanShiivastai»a^ Judge