as w’ Wi& T ‘ J w.P. (mNo. w? Q mm / Mahesh Kumar Mahar, (wrongly mtion a Mahesh Kumar Baya in imp order) S/o- Shri Parmeshwar aya (wny mone a Baya Aged about 32 yesi R/o— VillaKutha P.0—Barhapu Tehsil—Dhamdha; Distt Durg, Presently rking a Sarpanch Gm Panc—i (Kutha), Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh PETITIONER mm“ u @ Anup Lal Lahre, /l; S/o- Shri Jgruram e, Aged abou ars R/o- Village-Pendrii P.O;-jpur Ra Tehsil & P.S. — amdha, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh; Sub—Divisiona fer Renu Durg, Distt. Durg, CG. . Election Officer, Janpad Panchayat-Dhamdha Distt Du G; , . rg, C. . Chief District Econ Officr, Durg, Tehsil & Distt. Durg C.G.- mw HE HIGHCOURT OF €HHATTISGARH UDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) ened s ugned B rogl entid s ), ar ge-, .r, . wo s ra hayatPendr . “VERSUS ha Lahr t 26 ye, Dh , l Ofic (veeL . leti e , RESPONDENTS HIGH C01 WT OF CHHAT'I‘ISGARH AT RH .ASPI IR WRIT PETITION (C) N0, 1858 0f2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’me Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: ' Shri Pankaj Shyivastava Advocate for the petitioner. Shri 'r‘raveeu D/hurandhzir, Advocate for the respondent N0. 1. Shri Ajit. Singy Panel Lawyer for the State. § ORDER ()RAL) (Passed mi 17‘ day GfOC‘tober, 2G1} ) V 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Election Tribunal has allowed the election petition ofthe respondent No. 1 and declared the election ofthe petitioner as Sarp'anchi to be void by order dated 30.03.2011 (Annexure P/l) without framing issues and Without aEording proper opportunity to the parties to adduce evidences: documents. thus. the impugned order is bad in law. Shri Shrivastava relies on a. decisions of this Court rendered in Parvan‘a v. Padmini & Othersl and Si’gaw porn” v. Snaaram & Othersz in support of his submission that no election petition can be decided without framing issues and examining the Witnesses produced by the parties. Q1111 Shrivastava further submits that the Sub Divisional Onicer (Revenue) (for short 'the SDO’) Durg has also decided the social status of the petitioner. which is not at all sustainable in law as the same could be done only by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short ‘fhe Committee ’).. " 2005 (2) CGLJ 335 2 WP Nai4270 of 2on5 (decided on 19—11-2008) . ... PETITIONER : Mahesh Kumar Mahar‘ VER SI IS RESPONDENTS Anup Lal Lahxe 8c Others. é} 2: Learned counsd appearing for the State as well as respondent N01, fairly submit that. the impugned order suffers &om deflciency and infirmity on account of the above stated reasons. Thus, the impugmd order may be quashed and fmther the matter may be remitted back to the election tribunal i.e. respondent No. 2 for deciding the same in accordance with law aner framing isssues and examining witnesses properlv. 3. In View of the submission made by learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the impugned order dated 30.03.2011 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. ’ The matter is remitted back to the SDO (R): Durg for deciding 1he matter ahesh after decision ofthe caste of the petitioner by the Committee. The SDO (R) Durg, is accordingly directed to refer the matter to the Committee for their decision in accordance with law. 4. 1n View of the fact that. the election has taken place on 3 1 01.2010 and the same has been set aside Vide the impugned order dated 30.03.2011 (Annexure P/l)? it is expected that the Committee shall decide the dispute with regard to social status of the petitioner, as early as possible: preferably within a. period of three months (See: Madhuri Patti & Another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & 4 t Othersj, Director ofTribal Welfare, Governmem ofA.P. v. Laveti Girz‘ & Aaather" and Dinesh Kumar Bhagerz‘a v. State of Chkam‘sgarh & Othersj). In the result: the petition is allowed to the above extent with no order UI ,W asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri § Judge 3 (1994) 6 s‘cc 241 4 (1995) 4 SCC 32 5 W.P.(S) No. 33383007, decided on 19.08.2010