SINGLE BENCH IN THEE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUERE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) t W.P.N^4338 /200^ PETITIONER ,^"^< -<-y" ^ RESPONDENTS //-/. /^y/ ^M/ w VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Jeevan Lal Mannewar, s/o- Baigaram, aged about 30 years, Elected Surpanch, R/o- Village - Amlideeh, Tehsil- Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) Baharatu Kanwar, S/o- Garhan Singh, aged about 50 years, R/o- Village- Navapara, Tehsil- Kartala, District- Korba (C.G.) Ram Singh Kanwar, S/o- Bhagau, aged about 45 years, R/o- Village- Amlideeh, Tehsil- Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) Election Officer (Panchayat), Block- Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) The Sub Divisional Officer, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) The Patwari, P.H. No. 16/Tehsil- Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. XI-HC-78 WT^T^^TT^ \d-oc| <-<<i<iirt^, tPTn^<l<»,Rrti^-l^ CO<T5. ^200^ 31T^9T^P (<3crf^6^) ^^Twf^rpp ^P?T3n^$T^^i<b ^^TTW^T^T 3TI^$T chJ^Ic64)TlJ4144c6T^"f^^£l^Fjl^-$l\ ^3Tf^TOT^^T 16-9-2008 Heard Mr, Ravish Veijma, €X)unsel for fhe petitioner, OM admissioa. By fhis wriit petition undler Artidle 226/227 dffhe Coastitotion of India, fhe petitioner has 4uestioned fhe legaMty, propriely a&d corrcctaess of order dated 12^7-2005 (Aanexure P-1) paased by fhe Sub Divisional Officer, Kor^a (Specified OfBc^i), whercby tiie petitioner herein, who was fhe |elected Sarpaach ofVAUage Panchayat: Ainlideeh» has been declared disquali&ed on fhe grozind fhat fhe post of Sarpaoch of ViU^e Paxicl{iLayat: Amlijdeeh was rcserved fbr ST category, whereas, the petiti^iier herein beloiigs to SC category, |>een declarcd disqiialified to hold the ^chayat: Amli^seAi, Thercfore, fhe petitioaier has post of Sarpanch ofViMage Paxi The order iaipugned j|s prima fecie fllegal aad pervetse, therefore, fhe same is liable t| below, Hence, aotice of thi^ respondents, as fhe issiianc|e of iiotice to fhe rcspoadente wiU unnecessaEily delay flae pr\ rcspondent No.l herem^ Hj aggrteved by fhis oxder, fhey fiiling appUcation for modificati^ post of Sarpaach of Village election, the petitioner hercm ) set asMe for fhe reascms meiid<xaed petition is not being issued to fhe ^ceedmgs of ffae petitloii ffled by 3wever, if stiU fhe rcspoiidents feel will be at Uberty move fhis Court by )H/rccaBing crf fhis ordei. Brief facts leadiag to jB)mg of fhis writ petition arc that fhe petitioner herem aad respondejnts No. 1 & 2 contested election for tite ^anchayat: AmUdeeh and m Ibe said |was declared elected, as he obtaiaed XI-HC-78 *fli*i<ftifl»<fr<^ \;fcflc|<-qi<4lc><l, l?TTlx-l'll<»,RrtW^< ^y .....^.•^:..^y.8 ....... ^200^ 3n^$TwR^i<b HWOT^^T^^Jcb 3TT^?T^f^ (^clI^clcE;) B^ITW ^Tf^T 3TT^^T ~ ^ <pi<ifc5<S1ri +ii^oT^'(^^3 xf^t'<-ci<< ^3Tf^73IT^^T highest votes among the fhijee candidates, Aggrieved by the said result, rcspoadent No.l here(n fUed electioii petitioM under Sectfoii ^hayat Raj Avam Ghraiai Swaraj Adliioiyam, 1993^ in fhe Couift offhe Specii&ed OjGBcer (Sub Divisional Officer, Korba) on tfae groun^i fhat fhe post of Sarpanch of Vfflage Paiichayat: AxnUdeeh was r^ petitioner herem belongs to] served for ST categoxy, whereas, fhe OBC category, therefore, te was Mot eligible to contest electioa fo^ ffae pc^st of Sarpaach, Notice of fhe election petition was issued 1|o fhe petitioBer herem aad Ram Smgli Kaawar, respoxident No,2 h^rem^ asid fhey moved aji ap^dicatkm under Order 7 Rule 11 of |the C.P.G, for diBmissmg fhe electiooi petstibn oa fhe ground that| Maixnewar, falls in fhe cate| dismissed. Learoied Specifi^ the petitioner hereia^ by caste bemg feoxy of STF whicfli has beeai showni at SLNo. 16 ofthe Schedule, thexjefore, fhe election petitlon is Uable to be OfBcer vide the ixxipugned oider dated 12-7-2005 allowed fhe elect^on petition of respoxident No, 1 hoTein and declared the petitioner h Sarpanch. Pterasal of fhe iiclpugned order dated 12,07,2(X)5, prima facie, shows tfaat fhei^me is (hereiaafter referred to as <th^ to be foUowed by fhe S] ^rein as disqualified t6 hold fhe post of peryerse for fhe followmg r^soaas: • Rule 11 of fhe ChhatjisgarM Panchayats (Bleetion Pe^ttions, Comipt Practices and Disqu^Mfication for Mamberiship) Rutes, 1995 Rules, 1995'), eiiyisages liie procedure Officer, whfch reads as iinden • (1) Subject jto the provisions of fhese rutes, every election pe^ition shall be enqiifcred iixto by fhe speci&ed offi^cer as nearty, as may be, icL XI-HC-78 *11*101^<TTcf> vjw|<^||Z<lrtZ|,tPTTl<<1^<?, tdCOI^^X ..^.-.^.^i^./ 3n^$Tq5TRT114? ?CT^T^tT^4i<h l^ 3TI^?T q^Ep (yii^q<g) WL200^ <bl^Ic641rt ^Hrfl'^'fc^ \Kqx-5;l\ ^3lf^T3n^^T accoaxieuice wifh fh^ procedure appUcable under fhe Code of dvil Pr^cedzirc, 1908, to the trial of suite: Provided that jlt ^hiaU oaly be aecesssgry for fhe specified officerjto make a memoraadum of fhe substance of f^ie evidence of any witness exammed by Tiim. officer, ahall have ffae rted in a Coint under fhe lure, 1908, whea ttying a fbUowmg matters:- (2) The si powers which are Code of CivU suit m respect of fh< (a) discoveiy aad (b) eaforcing tih^ arid r^qiiiri^ig expenses; mspectioii; atteadaxice of witaesses, &e deposit of Ifaeir (c) compeUisig fh|e productionofdocument; (d) c^cammation ^fwitaiesaes on oati; (e) reception of aad (f) iasuing coi witiies^s suo moto appears to Rule 12 of fhe Rules, l* wifQesses by tbe parties, Whea fhe allegations leve] electioxi petition were denied by ^vMence takea <m ajGBdavtt; ^sion.for examiaatio^t of su33QLnioiuxig and exaiiiiiiijoig ly persofl whG^e evidaice, tobe material, )5, provides rcgaTdiikg productioxi of by rc^pondeDt No,l lieredn in fhe ithe petitioner hereia axxd respondent No.2 herem, in that situation, l^sanied Sp^ified Offifcerwas required to j&'ame issue 011 fhe point whe^e the parties were oa vaxiaiice m fhe XI-HC-78 *11*101 ^»iTTq? \dW< ^iqiW«,lPTi1<<-l^<S,Roi1<1^ ..'iS.-S'.:..^3^^... 3TT^5T q^cp (4c(i^6|<y) ^2005 an^^T^Tf^ypp ^CTW^^T^RTcp l:1 ti.li t-1f ?^TTSR ^Tf^cT 3TT^$T ^ h4^ rcsp<M|idieiit pleading aad thereadfter, ought evidence ia support of their 4 Whereas, leaxiied Spcxrffied enviaaged under Rules 11 & impugned order dated 12-7-2(^ petitioner hercm as disqual£&ed| Therefore, fhis orderis writ petition is aUawed and fh^ qus^hed, The Speci&ed Officer) the election petition, first he the petitioiierherem,aiid 11 of the C.P.O, and if he| Hiaintaipiable, thea he will hav^ to file rcply of fhe election poiat where fhe parties are at aUow fhe pardes to adduce fheit* In view of tfais ordet No.7948/2005 stand disposed <t: Beforc partmg wifh ttds| almost all fhe petitions filed ag^: (Sub Divisional Officei) beforc ] almost evexy petitioii tihie procedure prescribed under th^ petitions, It seems tfaat either ^ or they do not want to proceed| Uiible petitl^B 4)l<yfo4lyl ^l^riT^fc^l ^Rn^K ^3Vf^T3n^^T to have allowed fhe parties to adduce ^laim in order to prove their claim. ^er without followmg tfae procedure as 12 <rf tibie Rules, 1995, passed the 05 (AEuicsmre P-1) ^ad dectened fhe to be set aside, Acconiix^ty, fhe impugaed oxdcr dated 12-7-2005 is is directed to proc^ed wifh fhe tnal of to hear on fhe applic^ttion filed by No.2 faercia under Order 7 Rule j5iids that the a^plication is not to give nght to fhe petitioner hereiii and there^fter, ftame ISSMCS oa the variance ia tfielr pleadir^s a&d ffaeii evideaee< ', M.(W.)P.No.3576/2005 and I.A. € oider/ I would lifce to observe fhat tm.st fhe orderoffhe Specified OjBGicer ttdB Court are teia^ aBowed, as an Ofi&cers aie not foBtowing ttie Rules, 1995, for trial of the eleetion lie Officcrs are'tcrtalty igtiorant of law with tiie tnal of the electton petitioxi, ^dn! Spe|si6ed XI-HC-78 Tprenr^w^ vdxwi *<|iqi«q,tff-a)<<l«|<s,RrtKiy1< ^._^-</^<!^ <3TT^?T <W? (yii^q<g) ^200^ 3n^^TwR^i<h Wn3I7^^T^i4» r Soma ^ ^^ S^aTW^Rd 3TT^$T ~^~4 a|so ia accordaace wiih ^aw^ tihiereb^ time offhe general public and In such circuiastaQces, if: should consider the aspect reganling Panchayat Electlons) Corporatton Elections should b^ larger pubUc mterest Let a copy of fhis order b| Secretaiy (Paiichayal), Govt. of< Parties are entifled it is slieer w^astage of money osd offhe C^>urtJ>s time, is ioaipeiatwe that fhe Gyoverameiit ^hat fhe tdal of ele^tion petitioiis aad the MBiiicipalities/Muxsicipal entrusted to fhe Civfl Courts, m fbe for certified ^ sent to fhe Secretaiy (Law) and tte (phhattisgarh, copy oflliis oider, <PI<lIo^lr1 «1MoT^ffel<£l^f^l^lX ?l?3lf^N3IT^5T Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge /^ /^