SINGtE BENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH .^ ATBILASPUR W.P.NO.^oSa / 2005' Petitioner ..f .^/y. \°^y^ ^.••;%''./' ? ^^^> '•^%y ,0^ ^y^-'^7' ^'" Res£ondents Versus Hari Shankar Laliare S/o Shri Shambudayal Lahare, Aged about 39 years, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Samesar, R/o Village Samesar, Post - Nandal, Tehsil - Navagarh, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) k' State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare, Mantralaya Raipur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) RaJkumar Didore S/o Shri Padumlal Didore, Aged about 30 years, R/o Village - Cheetapar, Post 8& Tehsil - Navagarh, Dist : Durg-(C.G.) Girwar Singh S/o Shri Thanwar Aged about 61 years R/o Village - Kapri, Tehsil ~ Navagarh, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) 4,. Dauram Banjare S/o Milauram Banjare, Aged about 50 years, R/o Village - Kapri, Tehsil - Navagarh, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) 5< Dinesh Kumar ^ S/o Shri Puhoop Das Satnami, Aged about 37 years, R/o Village - Cheetapar, Tehsil - Navagarh, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) ^6. Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Banshilal Banjare, Aged about 30 years R/o VUlage - Kapri, Tehsil - Navagarh, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) s-1 (2) v / .^lf^^(S.>T.)/ ^x."^ 8, 9. Maniram S/o Shankar Jogi Aged about 32 years, R/o Village - Cheetapur, Tehsil - Navagarh-, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) Milau Ram, S/o Santuram Sahu, Aged about 50 years, R/o Village - Saiiiesar, Tehsil - Navagarh, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) Ramdas Manikpuri S/o Guhadas Manikpuri Aged about 35 years R/o Village - Samesar Tehsil - Navagarh, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) Ramratan S/o Bhalda Chaturvedi Aged about 32 years, R/o Village - Cheetapur Tehsil - Navagarh, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) Shiv Kumar S/o Shri Sundardas Vaishnav, Aged about 35 years, R/o Village - Samesar, Tehsil - Navagarh, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) l^ Shri M.L.Gupta - Sub Divisional Officer Bemetra cum Returning Officer, Block ~ Navagarh, Tehsil - Navagarh, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) 13^ Shri D.S.Ratre ^ y ^ 14., Instructing Officer, ITI Bemetra, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) Shri B.R.Soni Instructing Officer, ITI Bemetra, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) 15. The Sub Divisional Officer, Cum Prescribed Authority Bemetra, Dist: Durg-(C.G.) ^^.....^^^ ..^ (3) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-78 *ti*ioi ay^ff^ \dwc| ^-qiqio^, U»-n1<1<l<?,(clOttl^ • ^ •^ltk/a •^••••n••••••!••• dtB'ii •••|«««a««a» ^200 OT^^Tcj5TR^tich ^HOT^^T^t^ ff<inuii»,. 3I1^?T q^P (4clI^<sl«E{) ^nrw^rfipr W^^T S-9-2005 Shri Sandeep Dubey, Go^ By •t4i& instant writ peti cpi<ylo<n<ri <iwoY^ fe^ ^RI^I^ ^sri^Tan^ST Shr'i Pr'afulta Bharat, lear^ied counsel for the petltioner. t. Advocate for the State, rton/ -Hie p&tition^r has qu^stion&ci tha JegaiiTy, propriety ond corre<jtness of The order dated 8-8-2005 whereby the petitioner's objec't|ion application has been rej'ected, Brief facts ieading to fjiing of this writ petition are that the petitioner herein cnd respo contested for th@ post of ^arponch of villo^® Som<ssor and th@ petitioner he^in was deciared to the po^t of Sarpanch wa5 Section 122 of the Panchayat ^ ^fter receiving the notice, th^ to the effect thot complifl^ Panchayats (Election PetitionsJ For Membership) RuJes, 1995 mandatory proyision. In para that copy of 1+ie petition and| which were served upon the ^ tiie petitioner. Therefore, in rejected. Howeyer, le^xrned ident No.2 amongst other persons' ^tected. The eiection of the petitioner que^tioned by respondent No,2 under ^aj Avam 6Fram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993- petitioner herein moved an cpplication ^ce of ftub 3 of the Chhatt^arh Corrupt Practices and Disqualification |ias not been compiied with which is a -5 of the application it was m&ntioned documents annexed with liie peTition, |etitioner herein were not at+ested by the circumstoinces, same is liable to be Specified Officer rejected the said XI-HC-78 '^SSf <-qiqi0<4, ,U>-n1iM<l<?, f6|C)l<(1^ *fl*101 ^lf^ W^^TWf^TTcF ?CT[3n^^T?pwp Besrve F^ ^?TiT^(tjcli'l^) ^200 ^^nwr^rf^r W^^T * A. ^^u^ applicotion by ^D^iwi^ €^rder, which is under ch<xtten9e in thi^ cod^nsel petition. Ihave hsard learned After goin9 throu9h t^ This writ petjfion is dispos^* petitioner herein is entitled iearned Specified Officer to same in accorctance wilti law ciear that th©order impU9ned issue regarding objectjon raise^ Consequently, M.(W.)P. Parties ar& entitkd for a$ <pi^Io<n<i<i!44coT^tTs^£l^FJI^I<< !|!3|^TW^9T for 1+ie petitioner. |@ applica+ion and -Hiff impu^n^d ordsr, s4d of with an observation ThaT The |to rdse an objection in return and f^ame issue on that point and decsde 1+ie o^ preliminary issue. However, it is made shall not come sn way whiie decidin9 th@ by the petitioner. ^0.3310/2005 aiso stands elisposed of. 4<srltififid copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge rtio.