;lc ^ • ld 'L^' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) N0. / 2011 S.B. PETITIONER -:f- Samarinbai W/o Chheraka, aged about 50 years, R/o Chikhali, Tahsil- Malkharouda, Distt.-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ ..•<'. °.'^^ ../-^<%>' ^y^ A^''' ^ I. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). .2. Smt. Sadhmati W/o Sammapat 3. Smt.Bitawan W/o Laxman 4. Smt. Phulbai W/o Gangaram 5. Parwatibai W/o Murari Gond 6. Smt. Lalita Bai W/o Vijaykumar Respondent No.2 to 6 are resident of Chikhali, Tahsil- Malkharouda, Distt.-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 7. Presiding Officer, Polling No. 150, Through- the Tahsildar, Malkharouda, Distt.-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). . 8. Presiding Officer, Polling No. 151 Through- the Tahsildar, Malkharouda, Distt.-Janjgir- (ni.|]; ^^-— '^^'^y^^SS^^^^^^^^^^^^i^^^Ki^^S^I^B^eS^i^^^^^i^^^^K^CT^E^^^^^^^g^iBlfE BR @ / Champa (C.G.). 9. Presiding Officer, Polling No. 152 Through- the Tahsildar, Malkharouda, Distt.-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ilA.\ -a '-^ 1 B;';sE$8i>k % 'g A ^s^'^if^k^ .s^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0.577 OF 2011 PETITIONER Samarinbai RESPONDENTS Versus The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 227ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Shrijith C.S. Nair, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents No.7 & 8. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 12th day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 9-12-2010 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa, in revenue case No.24/A-89(21)/09-10. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the year 2010 the election for the post of Sarpanch (reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate), Gram Panchayat Chikhali was held. In the said election, the petitioner and the respondents No.2 to 6 contested. According to the petitioner, since beginning the petitioner raised an objection with regard to the social status of the respondent No.2 on the ground that the respondent No.2 is not a member of Scheduled Tribe community, but the same has not been considered and finally after conclusion of the election process, the respondent No.2 was declared as elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chikhali. . 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, ^-•;,.e~ts».;^'., /'^% '~%, !"Sa%^ 8. which was dismissed by order dated 9-12-2010 in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Hence, this petition. On perusal ofthe impugned order dated 9.12.2010 and on hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is found that the S.D.0. has considered all the aspects of the matter in its letter and spirit and has passed a detailed and reasoned order. It was further held that the petitioner has failed to establish that the respondent no.2 is not a member of Schedule Tribe community. It is well settled position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reiterated in Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri and Another1 and also by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others , wherein it is held that if a social status certificate is issued in favour of the member of Scheduled Tribe, the same cannot been examined by the S.D.0. either in the election petition or otherwise. The High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee alone is competent to verify the social status certificate. In view of the above, 1 have not noticed any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As an upshot, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- - Satish K. Agriihotri Judge 1(1994)6SCC241~ 2 (1995)43cc 32 'WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3338 OF 2007