^ A ^ ^f .^^•p,.»fir IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (Art.227).NO.^t9:;h OF 2010 PETITIONER NON-APPLICANT No. 1 RESPONDENTS APPLICANT Smt. Ranjita wife of Baliram, aged about- 27 years, Caste- Kalanga, R/o village- Bhakurra, Tahsil 6& Tahsil- Lailunga Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS 1. Snit. Karaniwati wife of Dhobharam Sidar, aged about- 40 years, Caste- Kalanga, R/o village-Bhakurra, Tahsil & Tahsil- Lailunga Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). NON-APPLICANTS 2. Atwariwife of Chamar Singh , aged about- 36 years, Caste- Kalanga, R/o village- Bhakurra, Tahsil & Tahsil- Lailunga Distt. Raigarh, (C.G.). -3. Puni Bai wife of Ram Prasad, aged about- fAht^l^ 2— 36 years, Caste- -Kalg.nga, R/o village- Bhakurra, Tahsil & Tahsil- Lailunga Distt. Raigarh, (C.G.). ^4. Fulwati wife of Lalit, aged about- 30 years, ^ Q^JX.^ ^ Caste- Kalanga, R/o village-Bhakurra, Tahsil 8s Tahsil- Lailunga Distt. Raigarh, (C.G.). ^S. Ramwati wife of Padamsai, aged about- 21 ^ ^OLn^c^ ^^^/^° years, Caste- Kalanga, R/o village- Bhakurra, Tahsil & Tahsil- Lailunga Distt. Raigarh; (C.G.). /^6. Lal Kumari wife of Dilsagar, aged about- 23 years, Caste- Kalanga, R/o village- Bhakurra, Tahsil & Tahsil- Lailunga Distt. Raigarh, (C.G.) ^M) /^/^y ^/^/ ^,/f^ ^J. ^y oj .^ ^s .^ WRIT ^. Shanti wife pf Rakesh Kujur, aged~~aLout 29 years, Caste- Uraon, R/o village- Bhakurra, Tahsil & Tahsil- Lailunga Distt. Raigarh, (C.G.). /'8. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) (Spedfied Officer, C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam), Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, (C.G.). y^. State of Chhattisgarh through Assistant Election Officer, Lailunga Tahsil- Lailunga Distt. Raigarh, (C.G.). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE -^ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0.7197 OF 2010 PETITIONER NON-APPLICANT N0.1 RESPONDENTS APPUCANT Smt. Ranjita Versus Smt. Karamwati (Writ Petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri M.K. Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 8th day of December, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks for quashment of the order dated 30-10-2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Gharghoda, District-Raigarh in Revenue Case No.5/89/2009-10 (Karamwati v. Ranjita & Others). 3. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the respondent No.1 herein filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 for recounting of votes of the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhakurra. In the said petition, the petitioner submitted an objection with regard to maintainability of election petition. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 submitted reply to the objection raised by the petitioner and denied the averments made in the same. The Sub Divisional Officer passed the order on 30-10-2010 holding that all the points raised by the petitioner will be considered at the time of trial of the case and accordingly, the objection raised by the petitioner has not been considered. Thus, this petition. 4. On bare perusal of the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it appears that the Sub Divisional Officer wants to settle the dispute on appreciation of the evidences and documents. Thus, 1 have not found any irregularity and jurisdictional error on Ashok appreciation of law and facts in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The supervisory jurisdiction ofthe High Court underArticle 227 is limited. It is a trite law that the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction for issue of writ of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. In the case on hand, no junsdictional error, infirmity or irregularity has been pointed out. Thus, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is not incljned to interfere with the impugned order which is legal, just and proper. (See Abdul Razak (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Others1 and Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another v. Rajendra ShankarPatiF. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. __„—— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' 2010 AIRSCW 1414 . 2 (2010) 8 SCC 329