c ^ ^•l00( IN THE mGH COORT OF JDDICATIJSEAT BHASPOR GHHATTISGARH WP N0. 5^^-M ^ /2005 PETITIONER Smt. Pushpalliakur, Aged at)out_39 years, W/o. Gajanan Suigh lliakur, R/p. Village Kotmi,Tahsil Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPOMDEaiTS ^^ ^•" ^^'"^J'.0 / 2] -^3] o ^^ o.*a»fSS^ 4] 1] 2] 3] State ofChhattisgarh, Through: Secretaiy, Panchayat and Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) S.D.O. Bhatapara, Dist Raipur(C.G-) Smt. RAniya Bai, Aged about 35 years, W/0. Krishna Kumar Tliakur, R/o. ViUage Kofmi, TahsU Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) Sint. Pushpa Dhruv, Aged about 40 yrs, W/o. R^'andra Dhruv, R/o. Village Amlidih, E.S. and Tahsil Bhatapara, Distt Raipur (C.G.) Rajeshwari Ag.ed about 38 years, W/o. Tpshan Verma, R/o. ViUage Kotmi, Tahsfl Bhatapara, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) R.N. Verma, Prescribed OScer, Gram Panchayat, Kotmi, TahsU Bhatapara, -"'l''BS:gS';'DtStt.:Raq>ur(C,:G.) -_',:^.^.____._ WRIT PETn'ION UNDERAR'rieLE 326/227 OF THE CONSTTTOTiOiNOFINDIA RASTICOIARS OiF'HIEBE'H'nOKEKtSI; , As stateilabove infhe causetiflfi;. I>AKnC;DIARSOiFTHERfiSKM@3ENT l: AsstateHaboye^intheGausetiUie;,!^ •: • PARTK^JIARS OF THEi^iEaE^Siis^iAareT. WmeHl''BHt!S 5] /6]€ ' '-^ ra?miC>N]lSMADE. ' Orderdated : 15.09:2085 'assec ^t^^SiS<KiB/~tSS^O@*^, '^ds^ ;.,i:^^; XI-HG-78 v}yq*<i]<tl<»<4,U>-<flo< 1 <s; R«ray( ICTOI^TT^ r®...^P^O^.<^.^%.4 3TI^?T IR^ (qqfg^) an^CT^TR-ii'fr aaiTan^ST**!!* STBTSR'flRd SR^^ 7-11-2005 Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counse Shri Sandeep Dubey, Govt. By this petition underArticle petitioner has questiqned the lega order dated 15-9-2005 (Annexure-| Bhatapara in Election Petition Nf Specified Officer dismissed the El herein under Section 122 of the| Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adh| of respondent No.3 on the ground by the petitioner nor by the authori^ (1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats and Disqualification for Membershij astheRules, 1995). Brief facts leading to filing o(] hereinalong with respondents No.^ of Sarpanch of village Kotmi and 1)1 after counting ofthe votes. Beihg d| herein challenged the election of i^ the Adhiniyam, 1993 inthe Court 4 of the same was issued in whicK behalf of respondent No.3 that the| Specified Officer in terms of Sub 1995 andsame was altowed. I have heard learned counsel cpi<iF«<ilt<i]*ic?i^"l^'^l '(Rf'wi'i A ^srf^Taii^sT for the petitioner. Idvocate for the State. £26/227of the Constitution of IndJa the llity, propriety and correctness of the -P/6) passed by the Specified Offieer, li|).08-B/151-2Q04-05 whereby learned l^ction Petition filed by the petitioner Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj fniyam, 1993), questioning the election (hat neither the petition was presented jed person in writing in terms of Rute 3 (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices i(3) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to this writ petition are that the petitioner |to 5 contested the election for the post i|espondent No.3 was aeclared elected fssatisfied wjth the result, the petitioner espondent No.3 under Section 122 of Specified Cfficer, Bhatapara. Notice preliminary objection was raised on petition was not presented before the Rjules (1) and (2) of Rule 3 ofthe Rules, for the parties. XI-HC-78 vd-oq '-<<1<IIW«,U>-(fl'9'll<o; Rrtl<<iy'< *i 1*101 a»Tn^ STt^ST tRq? ('i^3EI^) 3II^?T!pTR'di* c]aiTaiI^?Ttb*li'<b <.-.' ^;-. s^iisR^ifeTan^OT ^.•^ WBs proflt^bl envisjages Learned counsel for the p( separate authorization in writing petition on behalf of the petitioner. was executed by the petitioner.in Fekar and in view of that Vakalatn^r petitioner was authorized to file the| In order to appreciate the ^i for the petitioner it would be 1995. Sub-rule (1) ofRuteS presented So the specifled Officer) makihg the petition, dr by a perso^i the person making the petition. Rule 8 lays down the pj envisages that 'lfthe provisions of| compljed with, the petition, shall bej Provided that the petition without giving the petitioner an Therefore, sub-rule (1) of the election petition shall be petitioner himself or bya person a|[ person making the petition. It is an admitted position th^it favour of advocate Mr. R.K. Fekar Learned counsel for the Vakalatnama, the advocate was ai)l Perusai of the Vakalatnat nowhere it has been mentioned th^t fetitioner submitted-that it is true that not given to the advocate to file the |However, Vakalatnama (Annexure-P/5) lavour of the advocate hamely Mr. R.K. jma (Annexure-P/5) the advocate of the Ipetition. jrgument advanced by learned counsel le to reproduee Rule 3 of the Rutes, that 'An election Petition shall be |during the office hours by the person authorized in writing in this behalf by <PI<l[«<Ill<1!*«'»Y-^"fe'<3 '(Ril't^l'! ^art^raii^?! 1-ocedure on receiving petition which Irule 3 or rule 4 or ruie 7 have nbt been dismissed by the specified office^s: ihall not be dismissed under this rule opFfortunity of being heard. Rple 3 of the Rules, 1995 envisages that pre^ented 10 the specified officer by the i|uthorized in writing in this behalf bythe no specific authorizationwas given in to present the petition. >etitioner argued that in view of the thorized to file the petition. Tia shows that in this Vakalatnama learned counsel was authorized to fite XI-HC-78 \dTC| ^ioirto, u>Tilx-i<i(»,Rciiwyt *11*101 ^TT^ aiT^ST'R^ (l?tgcra) 3IT^?TWKi-li<t> asnaii^airiiHi* Bar/e g the petition on behalf of the petitioitier was given in favour of the advocat aysrment was made regarding aut petition on behalf of the petitioner. or infirmify in the impygned order thisl am fortified by the judgment the matterofSuman Santosh Kunlar Patel and another reported in 199! In the result, the writ petition| is dismissed. <Pll[CT<ill*1!*1oY^'Is'cl'(Rl1'CI'( ^ail^Tsir^sT Neither any .special authorization '>x:f>'i/>ev- to file VA^alafemia nor any specific t---' e:^ (lorization ^frthe affidavit for filing the [Therefore, I do notfindanyirregularity |>assed by the specified officer and for |of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Patel V, Bhanwati Mahesh Pratap (1)M.P.L.J.88. |is liable to be dismissed and the same Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge I" -. /;- ^^~ ^^' 11UB