v¢ .‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( C) No. WM OF 2010 WRIT PETITION UUNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1. Particulars of the petitioner As stated in the cause title. PETITIONER : WSmt. Ambika Bai W/o Lalit, aged about 27 years by Caste — Bhuiya R/O Village Korangamal, Tahsil — Farsabahar, District— Jashpur, (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 13/ Smt. Martha Kujur W/o. Sirilh. aged about 65 Years, by Caste — Uraon, R/o. Village Bhalumunda, Tahsil \ rz/ ‘ é,w .n Farsabahar, District- Jashpur, Mi‘ (C.G.). {77.5 2. f Shri H. C. Nag, Election Officer ( Panchayat ) Tahsil — Farsabahar, District— Jashpur, (C.G.). 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ Prescribed Officer ( Panchayat ), Kunkuri , Distt.— Jashpur (C.G.) v (O HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 4144 of 2010 PETITIONER : Smt. Ambika Bai. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Smt. Martha Kujur & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 04‘ day of August, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 27.072010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kunkuri, District Jashpur, in Panchayat Election Petition No. OS/A— . 89/21/09-10 whereby the respondent No. 1 has been declared as returned candidate and has further been declared Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Korangarnal, Janpad Panchayat Farsabahar, District Jashpur. The facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent No. l filed an election petition against the petitioner on the ground that since the petitioner does not belong to scheduled tribe category and the post of Sarpanch was reserved for the said category, the election of the petitioner on the post of Sarpanch was void. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Election Tribunal has decided the matter without framing issues and without affording proper opportunity to the parties to adduce evidences, documents. Thus, the impugned order is bad in law. 'x “ W? Shri Sahu relies on a decisions of this Court rendered in Parvatia v. Padmim' & Others] and Shyam Ratan v. Siyaram & Others2 in support of his submission that no election petition can be decided Without framing issues and examining the witnesses produced by the parties. Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 as well as Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 3, fairly submit that the impugned order suffers rom deficiency and infirmity on account of the above stated reasons. Thus, the impugned order may be quashed and further the matter may be remitted back to the election tribunal for deciding the same in accordance with law after framing issues and examining witnesses properly. Learned counsel for the parties further submit that a stipulated time may be fixed for decision of the election petition in View of the fact that there has been a delay on account of the impugned decision, which could not sustain in the eye of law. Having regard to the facts situation of the case and considering the submissions made hereinabove, as the principle of law is welksettled that no election petition can be decided finally without framing proper issues and examining witnesses, if produced by the parties, the , impugned order dated 27.07.2010 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to restore in its original file and decide the case in accordance with law. . In View of the foregoing, it is expedient and proper to direct the election tribunal to consider and decide the case afresh, in accordance with law v \ 1 2005 (2) CGLJ 335 2 \ WP No.427o ofzoos (decided on 19-1 1-2008) \ \\\ \\ f