UR SB : HOIVBLE SHRI JUSIC PRINKER DWAK TE IT IER Budhram S/o. Shn' Dhaxmu, aged about 55 years, Occupation Cultivator, R/o. Villa Pandri, RS. and Tabsil Smajpur istn'ct Surguja (CG) PETITIONER Applicant Non-alicants EE 1. about Babau, 5 S/o. years, Bagar R/o. S, Village Aged Dhaneshpur, Tahsil Smajpur, Distt. Singuja {CG} Sukhlal, S/o. Shri Bodhan Ra Rajwade, agad about 6D yearS . Shiv Pmsad Rajwade, S}o. Sh Gavind Ram, aged abaut 3 years Responnt No. 2 6:. 3 we r/o. illage Pandn', RS. an Tahsil Surajpur, Distm'ct Surguja . (CG) 4. The Sub Divisional omcer (Election Tn'bunal} Surajpur Disuict Surguja (CG) lvll L 5 WRIT PETITION CONSTI'“"""0N UNDER ARTICLE OF IRDIA Q7 OF THE Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, counsel for the peiitioner. Shn' D.N.Pmjapa§i, csunscl for respoxmmt No. 1. None appeam for mspondents No. 2 6r. 3. I reepondent Shri Vaibhav No.4. Goverdhan, Panel lawyer for the State] ORAL ORDER (23.04.2009) M % HIGH COURT OF CHHAEEISGQQ Ax BILASE “LP. 12221 N0. 420412008 , ge D RSPONDNTs pp ‘ 5 ay m 3 2 ri V d de , In the election of Village Panchayat Pandn', Tahsil Smajpur, District Surguja, respondent No. 1 was elected as Sarpanch. This election was challenged by the petitionei‘ before the Sub Divisional omcer, Surajpur through Elecu'on Petition on 28.02.2005. Despite of suEcient time, the said election petiu'on was not decided. The pen'tioner had nled a writ peu'tion before this Hon’ble Court which was mgisteied as W.P.(C) No. 5430/2007 and vide order dated 7.9.2007 (Annexmfe P/ 4), this Court has disposed of the writ petition graniing liberty to the petitioner to move suitable application for early hearing of the election petition pending before the Sub Divisional omcer (Election Tribunal) Surajpur. In tum, the Sub Divisional omcer was directed to decide the said election petition in accordance with law preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of ming of the said application. The above order of this Court was submitted before the Sub Divisional 0$cer (Election Tribunal) Surajpur and vide order dated 30.04.2008, learned Tribunal has dismissed the election petition iof the petitioner by saying that there is no necessity for recording the evidence as the the Sub Divisional Ofricer haa aheady called for enquiry report of the Halka Patwari and the panchnama. According to the Sub Divisional O$cer, Surajpur, these two documents were on record and there was no need for recording evidence and based on these reports, the Court below has dismissed the election petition itself. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Rule 11 &, 12 of the CG. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualidcation for Membership) Rules, 1995, the Sub Divisional omcer was under the obligation to record the evidence and after following the due procedure, to decide the election petition. It appears that on account of the order of this Court, the Sub Divisional Officer was either in a hurry or took otherwisc and has dismissed the eiection petiu'on sum marilv. Supporting the order of the Sub Divisional Officar, Shri D.N.P1ajapati, 16amed counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the oxder is strictly in accordance with law and there was no need to record the evidence by the Sub Divisional o$cer because relevant material was befom the Sub Divisional O$cer (Election Tribunal) to arrive at a conclusion. Learned counsel for the State also supported the order impugned. I have heaxd the parties at length. Rule 11 85 12 of the C.G. Panchayats (Eleonon Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 reads as under : 11. Procedure before the speciiled omcer and his powers—(1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shall be enquired into by the specihed o$cer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits: Provided that it shall only he necessary for the specihed o$cer to make a memorandum of the substance of the evidence of any witness examined by him‘ (2) The specined 0&cer, shall have the powers which an: vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit in respect of the following matters:- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of Witnesses, and requiring the deposit of their (c) compelling the producn‘on of ddcument; (d) examination ofwitnesses on oath; (e) mccpu‘on of evidence taken on expenses; amdavit; and (i) issuing commission for 6Xamjnation of witnesses and summonin and examining suo moto any pemon whose evidence, appears to him to be material. 12. Parties to produce their witnesses— lt shall be the duty of the parties to produce /\ procedure, to record the evidence and then to pass the order. On this short ground alone, the-petition succeeds and the onier impugned dated 30.04.2008 1's quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Sub Divisional OEcer, Surajpur to txy the election petition in accordance with the rules, 1995 and pass appropn'ate order in ‘ accordance with law. At this stage, Shn' Shukla submits that the election petition was filed in the year 2005 and only few monfhs are left for the tenure of mspondent No. 1 and therefom, the Sub Divisional Onicer be directed to decide the election petition expeditiously, This prayer is not opposed by counsel for the mspondents. The Sub Divisional Ofdcer (Election Tribunal) is directed to decide the petition expeditiously and preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this cider. The parties would be under the obligation to submit the order of this Court before the competent authority/SDD. and'in turn the Sub Divisional O$cer will act promptly to decide the petition. Needless to state that the parties will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. No order as to costs. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge