^r'"^ UNGU^-u LN HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR WRIZ PETITION Cc) N_0. '^'3>M_OF 2010 PETITIONER ^^1; ^M^' ^ w ^^ w ^ •s.' RESPONDENTS ^' Vs ^ Balaram Rathore, son of Shri Bisnuram Rathore, aged 34 years, Voter No.1189, Occupation-Sarpanch, 6ram Panchayat Kodiya, resident of Ward No.13, Village Kodiya, 6ram Panchayat Kodiya, Block Masturi, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C6) 1. State of ChhattiS9arh, through the Collector, /District Bilaspur (C6). 2. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) / Prescribed Officer under the C.6. Panchayat Raj & 6ram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, Bilaspur 3. Horilal Yadav. son of Shri Tularam Yadav, aged about 53 years, Voter No.524, resident of Ward No.6, Village Kodiya, 6ram Panchayat Kodiya, Block Masturi, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C6) 4. Returning Officer (Panchayat), Masturi, Block s Masturi, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C6) 5'. Authorized Officer, Polling Booth No.92, Gram Panchayat Kodiya, Block Masturi, (C6) (R.S. Pandey, Agriculture Development Officer, Bahtarai, Tehsil and Oistrict Bilaspur CG) 6. Authorized Officer, Polling Booth No.93, 6ram Panchayat Kodiya, Block Masturi, (C6) (Aasharam Jaiswal, Upper Division Techer, Amtara, Tehsil and District Bilaspur C6) 7. Authorized Officer, Polling Booth No.94, 6ram Panchayat Kodiya, Block Masturi, (CG) (6.P. Pandey, Agriculture Development Officer, Tifra, Tehsil and District Bilaspur C6) 8. Authorized Officer, Polling Booth No.94A. Gram Panchayat Kodiya, Block Masturi, (CG) (Shiv Kumar Kashyap, Head Master, Primary School, Koilabhata, Tehsil and Oistrict Bilaspur (C6) 1 PETITIO^N UN&ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CPN_STITUTION OF IN&IA ^-M -ss ^ :S'C.^~.. .-^i.C-jP" K^yr .^[S /c\ 1<^.-'1 ^r^ i FC 1SG fRIT iO. 343' Baiaram Rathore Versus State of Chhattisaarh & Others WRiT PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IMDi {SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitior.er. Shri N.N. P.oy, Panei Lawverforthe State. Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the respondent No.3. 2. nnD [Passed on 12" Dav of Juiv, 20- Case of the petitionsr is that the Tribunai by order dated 07/07/2010 directed recounting of votes, however no copy of the order has been jiven to the petitioner. Despite facts that the petitioner apptied on 7 Juiy, 2010, the next date given in the appiication for obtaining certified copy of the order is 14 Juiy 2010. This is against the basic principles of naturai justice, as no opportunity of going through the order has been aiven without affordina occasion to chaiiencie the same, thereafter, if so advised before recounting of votes as ordered !s done. Shri Panday, learned counsei sppearing for the eiection petitioner/respondent No.3 here'in submits that he has also not been given the certified copy of 'the order and the next date is given i.e. 14 Ju!y 2010 in his case ateo. Shri Pandey, ieaned c.ounse! further submits that this petition may be disposed of by ciarifying that recounting should not be done, before makina CODV of the order availabie to both sides. Shri Shrivastava, iearned counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that since there is no challenge on merits of the case. This petition may be disposed of with a direction to compiy with the order "Sfe .1;' . '"- 'a :;:;i<¥^i passed by the Tribunai, after a copy of the certified order is made available, that mav be on 14/07/2010. Accordingiy, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the recounting of votes pursuant to the order dated 07/07/2010 passed by the Tribunal shall not be given effect to before certified copy of the order is made available to the parties. !t is further expected that reasonable time of seven davs mav be aranted to the parties after copy of the order is made avaiiable for recounting of votes as directed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge