PETITIONER RESP. No.1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH' AT BILASPUR w.P.(2-i6:Eo. QKQ {2010 {f Ramkaliya, aged about 38 years, wife of Shri Shiv Kumar, R/o Vill. Dumarpan, Tahsil Distt. Sarguja (CG) Ramanujganj, RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFF VERSUS ,x’ 1f Baso, wife of Shri Kalichara‘n, aged ' about 55 years, R/o Vill., Dumarpaan, Tah. Ramanujganj, Jp Pancht — mchdr, , Dist. aguja CG) Phulkunwar, w o hri Nn ag o year Ui da araya, ed abut 55 s, Samudi /o itra, ed bout 4 yea Somaiy, aged abt 3 rs, W Surajdevo Sohri we of ahru Singh, ad about 5 year, Resp. . 2 to 5 are / Vi Dumaran, Tah. Raanujnj, Distt. arguja (CG) V Jarayan Gupta, iksha Ki, Ciass-l, Higher Scondary Shl — ura, [,iJanpad ancat Balrampur, Ditt. Sguja (CG) Prabhat Mij, hiksha Karmi, Ci III, Priary Schooi Manarh anad aya Raanrapu t Sr ( ife f S r W Vum ag a 5 rs ra ou 5 yea /o a if S ge 3 s No Ro il pa mga S gna Sh arm e coo Dho Phay s ar n S ass m ga, “5% Janpad Panchayat Balrampur, D‘istt. Sarguja (CG) Shyamlal Singh, Shiksha Karmi, Class III, Primary School — Seeta Rampur, Janpad Panchayat — Balrampur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) Sudama Singh, Shiksha Karmi, Clas III, Primary School Basera Khurd, Janpad Panchayat — Ramchandrapur Distt. Sarguja (CG) . Kamleshwar, Kujur, Shiksha Karmi, Class I, High School Doura, Janpad Panchayat — Balrampur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) ‘. Pandu Ram, Shiksha Karmi, Class III, Primary School — Maharajganj, Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) Ram Singh Ekka, Shiksha Karmi, Class III, Primary School I — Seetrampur, Janpad Panchayat Balrampur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) Krishna Kumar Yadav, Shiksha Karmi, Class III, Primary School Bera, Janpad ' Panchayat Ramchandrapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) A Dhaneshwar Ram, Shiksha Karmi, Class I, Higher Secondary School — Maharajganj, Janpad Panchayat — Balrampur,(D'istt. Sarguja (CG) Anil Kumar Toppo, Shiksha Karmi, Class III, High School — Maharajganj, Janpad Panchayat Balrampur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) 13. 14. 15. s . 16. Vidyadhar, Shiksha Karmi, Class III, Primary School Tarkapad, Janpad Panchayat — Balrampur, Sarguja (CG) 17. Ramput Yadav, Shiksha Karmi, Class III, Primary School — Krishna Nagar‘ Dhamani, Janpad Panchayat — Ramchandrapur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) 18. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ramanujganj, Distt. Sarguja(CG) Distt. V I- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 6261 ‘of 2010 PLAINTIFFS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.K.Pandey, Advocate for the respondent No.1/ Caveator. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 18t day of November, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks for quashment of the order dated 16.9.2005 (Annexure P-S), whereby the application of the petitioner for disposal of the election petition has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made an application for dismissal of the election petition under the provisions of Rule 80 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat ' Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as the “Niyam, I995”) read with Rules 5 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices & Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 1995 "). 4. Shri Mishra, further submits that the application of the petitioner . for dismissal of the election petition has wrongly been rejected, as the election petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of r PETITIONER Ramkaliya RESPONDENT No.1 VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Baso & Others Rule 80 of the Niyam, 1995 read with'Rule 5 & 6 of the Rules, 1995. 5. The contention of the petitioner is frivolous; firstly; requirement of Rule 80 cannot be the ground for dismissing the petition at the threshold. The said ground can be taken, if at all at the time of final hearing of the petition. The election petition may be dismissed at threshold only if the petition has not complied With the provisions ofRule 3, 4 & 7 under Rule 8 ofthe Rules,l995. 6. The contention of leamed counsel that mentioning of Rules 5 & 6 of the Rules, 1995 in the cause title would be enough and the applicant is not required to give the details how the provisions of Rules 3, 4 & 7 have not been complied with, is noticed to be rejected. If the petitioner is making an application for dismissal of the election petition at the threshold, he has to make specific reasons, pointing out the defect in specific manner, not by writing the provisions of law at the top of the petition. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the application, as in the application, it was nowhere stated about any violation of provisions of Rules 3, 4 & 7 of the Rules, 1995, as required under the Rule 8 of the Rules, 1995, which provides for dismissal at threshold. 7. Reliance of the petitioner on a decisiOn of the Supreme Court in Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal] is not relevant to the facts of the case on hand, as though the duty to examine the provisions of the election petition is cast upon the Tribunal, but the defect has to be pointed out by the opposite side even if it is presumed that the Tribunal ought to have considered itself and Tribunal failed to do g.\,\\\ 1 (2009) 10 SCC 541 \ \\V .\ r €79 3 the same. It is for the non-applicants (the petitioner, herein) to point out the defects in order to seek dismissal at threshold in accordance with law. Nothing has been done in this case and the petitioner is seeking dismissal of the petition on the ground, which is not available to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to raise all the legal issues or otherwise before the Tribunal at the time 0f final hearing. No order asto costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok