(a IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. (227) No. §9tm / 2011 5.3. PETITIONER : /Anjalus S/o Mikhail, aged LFQHHCMPm )k about 55 years, Caste- Uranv, R/o village Hethkapa, Tahsil— Kunkuri, Distt.— Jashpur (C.G.). § VERSUS ESPONDENTS : x 1. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kunkuri, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.). Vinod S/o Joseph, Caste— Uranv, Prakash S/o Juvel, Caste— Uranv, Sulo S/o Sanjhu, Caste— Korva, Kusum S/o Pataras, Caste- Uranv, Respondent No.2 to 5 are resident of village Hethkapa, Tahsil- Kunkuri, Distt.— Jashpur (C.G.). /6. Biltha S/o Pilan, Caste— Nagwanshi, R/o— village Uparkapa, Tahsil- Kunkuri, Distt.~ Jashpur (C.G.). 7. Tejram Bhagat S/o- not known, (Presiding Officer of Booth No. 84). R é g y Kl 9 Address: Head Master, Primary School Danhidih, Tahsil- Bagicha, Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.). (n 8. Rajendra Prasad Nagdeo S/o— not known, (Presiding Officer of Booth No. 85). M " Address: Primary School Head Bagicha, Master, e Distt.— Jashpur(C.G.). I /9. R.N. Pandey (Returning Officer Kunkuri) Post- Tahsiidar- Kunkuri, Distt.— Jashpur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Law”, 91 HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) NO. 5944 OF 2011 PETITIONER Anjalus Versus RESPONDENTS The Sub Divisional Officer & Others (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. AFK ORDER (Passed on this 315‘ day of October. 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kunkuri, District Jashpur, in Revenue Case No.20/A—89(21)/2009-1 0 (Anjalus v. Vinod & Others). 2. Learned counsel appearing 'for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, against the elected candidate i.e. Vinod on the allegation of corrupt practices committed by him. The respective parties filed their responses. However. the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. in its letter and spirit, dismissed the election petition on the technical ground that the petitioner has not attested each and every document as required under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practice and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short "the Rules, 1995’). Thus, this petition. 3. The election tribunal, after having considered all the facts of the case noticed that the election petition did not comply with the provisions of Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1995, and, as such, the election petition was dismissed. §?/ 4. Rule 3 & Rule 8 ofthe Rules, 1995 reads as under: 3 Presentation of election petition - (1) An election Petition shall be presented to the specified Officer during the office hours by the person making the petition, or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition. (2) - Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. 8. Procedure on receiving petition .'- If the provisions of rule 3 or rule 4 or rule 7 have not been complied with, the petition, shall be dismissed by the specified officers: Provided that the petition shall not be dismissed under this rule Without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being hear W, Provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules, 1995 provides that if the provisions of Rule 3 or Rule 4 or Rule 7, have not been complied with, the petition shall be dismissed by the specified officer after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Under provisions of Rule 3(2), it is imperative that the petition must be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. lt is not the case of the petitioner that every copy meant for the respondents was duly attested by.the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that it was a technical defect is without any basis and the same deserves to be dismissed. Rule 8 does not contemplate any application or objection on the part of the respondents, as Specified Ofhcer, as defined under rule 2(d) of Rules, 1995, on verification, is under an obligation to dismissed the - petition, if the same does not-comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 3 or Rule 4 or Rule 7 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner was afforded full opportunity. SE .Even after written statement was filed by the respondents, the petitioner has not taken any steps to cure the defects, as the same was mandatory with the permission of the tribunal. Thus, the finding of the tribunal cannot be faulted with. The petition was rightly and legally dismissed. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that requirement of signature on the election petition and verification in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 under provisions of rule 5(c) is curable. There is no quarrel on that point, as this is not a case wherein the verification in the petition was not done and also this is not a case wherein the petition has been dismissed s on the ground of lack of verification as prescribed under clause (c) of Rule 5 ofthe Rules, 1995. In view of foregoing, there is no merit in this case and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/— SATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge ashok