HIGH COT UR OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR W.P.1UJA 22?) N0.58$2I2§10 PETITIONER Chudamani, Rathore, S/o Narhari Prasad Rathcre, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Sivni, Tahsil Champa,. District. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Sarpanc‘n, Gram Panchayat, Sivni, Block Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Versus REsPONBENTS Sub-Divisionai Officer (revenue)/Specified Officer, Champa, Disirici Janjgir-Champa (CG .) Chameii Sahu, W/o Bhagwat Sahu, aged about 45 years, Rio Viiiage $ivni, Tahsii and District Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) Respondent/election petitioner Digambar Singh, aged about 4O years, S/o Late Prem Singh Rajput, R!o Village and Post Sivni, Tahsi! and District Jangjir— Champa (C.G.) 4 Bhagwat Dewangan, S/o Bairam Prasad Dewangan, aged about 32 years, R/o Viliage and Post Sivni, Tahsii and District Jangjir— Champa (C.G.) Rajendranath S/o Govindnat Yogiraj, aged about 46 years, R/o Village and Post Sivni, Tahsil and Dietrich Janjgir~Champa (C.G.) A.K. Uraon, Returning Officer (Panchayat), Janpad Panchayat Baioda, District Jangjir-Champa (C.G.) and Tahsildar Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRET PETITIGN UNDER ART1CLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONST!TU'§'!ON OF tNmA Appearance : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate on behalf of Mr.‘ Gurudev i. Sharan, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sao. Government Advocate for respondent No.1r’Sub Divisional Officer!Specit"ied Officer. Mr. Viehnu Koshta, Counsel for respondent No.2/Eiection Petitioner. 2 w.P.(U/A 227) No.5862/2o1o ORAL ORDER (15.02.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner—Chudamani Rathore ls an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sivnl, Block Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa. His election was called in question by respondent No.2 by filing an Election Petition under Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Respondent No.2 took specific ground that the petitioner was an encroacher, therefore, he was not qualified to contest the subject election on the grounds contained in Rule 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short “the Rules, 1995”). The copy of the Election Petition has been filed as Annexure P/2. ln the Election Petition, the above ground has been specifically taken by the election petitioner. Repty to the Etection Petition was also filed by ' the petitioner hereinr A copy of the reply has been filed as Annexure P/3. There is specific denial by the petitioner in his reply before the Election Tribunal regarding the averments made in the Election Petition relating to the encroachment made by him. During the course of pendency of the Election Petition, the petitioner filed an application dated 17.06.2010 (Annexure P/4) and prayed for caliing certain documents from the possession of Patwari and also for calling the encroachment register to show that the petitioner herein in no manner was disqualified to contest the election to the post of Sarpanch. The Tribunal heard the arguments on this application and by the impugned order dated 17.09.2010, 3 W.P.(UIA 227) No.5862f201G the said application of the petitioner has been dismissed, therefore, the petitioner has fiied this writ petition. Mr. Paranjpe, learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the question raised in the election petition was as to whether the petitioner was qualified or disqualified to contest the election on the ground of he being encroacher, as alleged by the election petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had filed the said application to call the records of the relevant year to show that the averments made against him were not true. His submission is that the Election Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the said application even without, assigning any reason for the same. He prays for quashing of the impugned order. On the other hand, Mr. Sao and Mr. Koshta, learned counsel for the respective respondents oppose these arguments. l have heard teamed counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ petition. A perusai of the records would show that the controversy raised between the parties was that of alteged encroachment made by the petttioner, which he denied in so many words by filing his written statement. The order sheet dated 07.06.2010 would show that some documents relating to encroachment were filed by the election petitioner and the copies were given to the petitioner herein. lt appears that the petitioner, with a view to rebut the above documents, has filed the said application, which has been rejected by the Election Tribunal. ln View of the above facts and circumstances of the case, l deem it appropriate to allow the said application 4 W.P.(UIA 227) No.5862/2010 and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal on 17.09.2010. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is aiiowed. The impugned order dated 17.09201 0 is hereby quashed and the application of the petitioner dated 17.06.2010 is attowed. The relevant documents referred to in the application dated 17.06.2010 shall be called by the Tribunal before proceeding further in the matter. it is stated that the issues have not been framed. it is observed that the Tribunal shall frame issues and then,’ it shall call upon the parties to adduce their evidence on the issues and shall decide the Election PetitiOn in accordance with law keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995, which lays down the procedure for decision of the election petition. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this petition stands finally disposed of. “ ‘ Sd/- v ERDHLIGH%AREHNHA Judge