HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.(C)No. 267 <rf 2007 Petitioner Respondents Versus- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11 12. 13. 14. 15. \ Hari Shankar Lahare, S/o Shri Shambhudayal Lahare, Aged about 39 years, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Samesar, Tehsil Navagarh, District Durg (C.G.) State of ChhatGsgarh, TTirough: The Seaetaiy, Department of Panchayat and Social Wellare Mantralaya, DJ<.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Rajkumar Dklore, S/o- Padum Lat [Mdore, 30 yre. R/o. Ville^® Cheatapar, Post & Tehsit Navagarti, Districl Durg (C.G.) The Specried (Xfcer Cum Sub Divjsional OfRcer, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) Girwar Singh, S/0 Shri Thanwar, 61 years, R/0 Vill. Kapri The. Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Dauram Banjare, S/0 Milauram. 50 years. R/0 Vilt. Kapri The. Navegarh, Distt. Duig (C.G.) Dinesh Kumar, S/0 Shri Puhupdas, 37 years, RIO Vill. Cheetopar, The. Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Deepak Kwnar, S/0 Bansilal Banjare, 30 years, R/0 Wll. Kapri, The. Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Maniram, S/0 Shankar Jogi. 32 years, R/0 Vill. Cheetapur The. Navagarh, Dfett. Durg (C.G.) Milauram, S/0 Santuram Sahu, 50 yeare, R/0 vMI. Samesar, The. Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Ramdas Manikpuri, S/0 Guhadas Manilqiuri, K yrs. R/o Vill. Samesar The. Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Ramratan, S/0 Bhakla Chaturvedi, 32,.yrs. R/0 Viil. Cheetapur, The. Navagarti, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Shiv Kumar, S/0 Sundardas Vaishnav, ^ yre. R/0 VHI. Samesar, The. Navagarft, Distt. Durg(C.G.) Shri MJ-Gupta, Returning Offfesr, Block Navagarh Distt. Durg. Shri D.S-Ratre, Insfructing Officer, I.T.I. Bemetra, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Shri B.R.Soni, Instructing OfRcer, I.T.I. Bemetra, Distt. Durg (G.G.) sa...^ ~^^^^^. 2- 16. Shri B.R.Thakur, S.D.O. cum Specified Officer, Bemetra, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA {SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saflsh K. Agnihotri) Shri Prahill Bharat, Advocate fortti®petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Govt. Advocat®for the respondents No. 1 and3. Shri S. G. Verma, Advocat®for the respondent No. 2. None for the other respondents. ^ ORDER (Passed on this 17th day of July, 2007) 1. The peUGoner has filed this petition chaHenging 8ie order dated 6.2.2007 (Anne»<reP/13) passsd byfterespondent No.S/Specified Officer - cum- Sub Divisionat OfRcer, Bemetera, Distric* - Durg in Case No. 32-C/144 year 2004-05 ( Rajkumar Dindore Vs. Harishankar Lahrs&others), 2. The petittoner v/as elected as Sarpanch of Grarn Panchayat — Samesar, Tahsil—Nayagarh, Distitet - Durg in the etection held on 15.1.2005. The respondent No.2, a rivat candidate, flled elecBon petition before the respondent No.3 making altegaSons with regard tothecounflngofvotes. The responctont No.3 vkteorder dated 31.1.2007 (Annexure P/11) direeted reGounting of wtes. Brtng aggriewd the peWoner filed Writ Petitton (C) No. 214 of 2007, wherein is Court after having observed ftat thc evidence of bo8i the parties have been recorded by UT® Spesdfled fflRcser, the Specified Officer instead of passing the final order, dirKited recounting of votes, came to the concluston that e impugned order -3- passed by th9 SpecKed OfRcer on 31.1.2007 for recounting of votes was a non-speaking order and not a valid orcter. 71»us, this Court vide order dated 6.2.2007 (Annexure P/12) set aside fte order dated 31.1.2007 passed by the Specified Officer. 3, In ttre meantime, the Specifed OfRcer, on the basis of the order dated 31.1.2TO7 proceeded w ttie recounting of votes and declared the result on 7.2.2007 (Annexure P/14) whereby the respondent No.2 was declared as elected by Uie margin ofone vote. 4. Be ttiat as it may, since the order dated 31.1.2007 passed by the Specified OfRcer has been quashed, no recountlng of votes could have been done on the basisofthe orderdated 31.1.2007. ThiB, the recounting of votes held on 6.2.2007 is wittout any auttiority, hence the same isdeclared as invalid and is quashed. 5. Shri S. C. Verma, learned counset ssvpearmg for the respondert No.2 in atl faimess submite ttiat ttie recounting <rf votes on 6.2.2007 was pursuant to the order dated 31.1-2007, ntiteh couhl not have been done in view of ttie orcter dated 6.2.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 214 <rf 2007. 6. Leamed counse! appearing for the respondent No.2 sgrees with the submjssion of leamed counsel appearing for the pstitioner that the Specified Officer, after hearing both the parties can decide the cas® afresh as to whether ths recounting ofvotes is necessary or not. 7. Admittedly, ttie evidence of both ttie parfies have been recorded by the Specified Officer. thus it is not necessary to examineagain the wtoesses afresh. 8. Leamed counsel an>®a""9^r boththe parties submstthatthe fresh hearing of Ui®matter be done by some ottier <rfHcer, not by the earlier officer, who had passed the ordeis dated 31.17.2(X)7 and 6.2.2007. !n visw of the agreement of both the parties, the ^ r^pondent No.1 is directed to take appropriate stsps and nominate the Specified Officer, accorch'ngty, at the earliest. 9. The Specified Officer-cum-Sub Divisional CTRcer Is accordingly directed to hear the matter afresh after afferding an opportunity of hearing to aU e parties concemed and pass a fr^h order on mertt. 10.8ince ttie matter has been pendlng for more ttKin six months, ft is desirabte in tfte interest ofjustfce ttiat the matter be considered and disposed of as expeditfously as posslble, preferably wiihin a period of six weete from the date of nom!na8on of the Spwified OtRcer by Uie respondent No.1 to hear the matter. 11 .Wifti the above direcfions this petitkxi stands disposed of flnatly. No order as to costs. Certified cow. as psr Rutes. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur