:':i^ »K F. l IN THE HIGH COURTOJF* CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetitionNQ. 451s /2005 PETITIONER ,/^.y ••- f^^ f' ^ i.i. 'J • <.-- G^~ RESPONDENTS / ^^ •0-'..-;'c..U-^ ^^K- y^.^'f ^-^*' ^s^>'" v'~...^'"^•.y E^: is" Birjita Uraon (Lakra) W/o. Domnik Uraon aged about 35 years, Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Sarabkombo, R/o. Village Kiirabkombo, Tah. Bagicha Dist. Jaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary Panchayat & Social Welfare Departinent, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. 'l'he Sub-Divisional Officer (R) Cum-Presiding Officer Bagicha, Dist. Jaspur (C.G.) 3. The Returning Officer, Panchayat Election, Bagicha, Sub-Engineer, Warter Resources Department, Kansabel, Dist. Jaspur (C.G.) 4. Suresh Jain, S/o. Nemichand , Jain, aged about 40 years Panch, Ward No.6, Gram- Panchayat Sarabkombo, Bagicha, Dist. Jaspur (C.G.) ^l/)/ / v0?yi // 2 // WRLT PETITION U/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PA-B'TtT'^TTT ^ *imc9lWW vi-oq •^iwicw,wrKw\s,^ttmy .t^.f..4?!^J.GS^..., aTi$»rwR'<i* asiTan^sTSCTiw W^'ST q?^ (yifgq.a) ^200 S^iTSR^riSa aiI^CT 21.9.; WitS Shri A.K. Prasad, couna Shri Sandeep Dubsy, Gi. Hear'd on adnilssion. ?y This writ petition un Indw, the petitipner has cor'rectness of oraer dated 5ub bivisional Officer, Ba reeount of votes, recount recount, resoondent No.4 hai eiection was set aside, Srief facts leading t^ petiTioner and respondenT No| Up-Sarpanch of 6rcm Pon<^ 4.2.2005. As per fne countirj votes, whersas, respondent were deciared invalid and as Up-Sarpanch of Gram Pan| resuit, respondent No.4 fite^ The Chhatfisgarh Panchayat notlce of the same was \si 'bl^fdA'l •iiinT^"fa'd xfuit^it ^3I^TT3II^T il for the petitionet'. bvt. Advocats for the Sta+s. 4er Article 226/227 of The Constitution of questioned the legulity/ propriet/ and '5.7.2005 (Annexur-e .P-1) whereby learned ^eecha (Speclfied Officer) ordered for held on ths same day and as c rssult of been declared elected and the petltloner's fiiing of this writ petjtion are that the 14 her-ein conTesTed slectson for The DOST of thayat Sarsbkombo, which was held on ^ of votes, the petitioner herein received 9 i.4 herein rscsiyed 8 votes emd 4 yotes acc^rciingiy, the petitioner herein waa deciared ^hayat Sarabkombo. &tssaT!'sf!ed wil+i The oin election petition under Section 122 of |Raj Avam Grom Swaraj Adhjniyam. 1993. ued to the petitioner herein cnd vide SP/F XI-HC-78 ^TSET r<<i<<irt«,y-(Tl-<-i*r<»,RrtK-iyt WR5Ta?m^ 3II^9Tq^cp (^cllyo^) 3II^?Tq>TR'fl4) 5rai3ii^?i**ii<b S'RtTW'tlRd 3II^9T Cnerein|ifter impugnsci ordsr the prayer- for rs day recount was held and respond| Leamed counsel for the Officer' has passed -rfie impugnei for trlal of election petition as panchay-ats (Eiection Petitions, C^ Membership) Rules, 1995 Cnerein] therefore, the order impugned is As the order impuoned perverse & iifegaS on the face o1 not being issusd to respondsn- unnecesssriiy delay +he disposal No.4 stili feeis aggrieved by 1+iis) Court by fiiing an qsplication for I have perused the impugn^ Learned Specifisd Office^ reached +o the conciusion that s| marglri of one vote and he is no) the arguments of counsei for margin and in order to give f effective justice the recountin^ 'ffiqfa'fti •<i<i«Y^r"ls'<3'(Rf'^i'f ^aif^Han^CT .bount of votss was allowed, on +he sams fent No.4 was deciwed elected. petitioner argusd that the Specified order uuithout fo!iowin9 +he pr-ocedure ber Rutes 11 & 12 of the ChhaTTisgarh rrupt Practices wid bisquaiification for referred to as 't'ne Rutes, 1995'), iabie To be quashed. passed by the Speclfied Officsr is it. therefore, notice of this Detition is No.4, o.s the issuance of notiee will ^f' ti'ie petition- Mowever, if respondent order, he wi!l be at iiberty To move This nodification/reccilina of this order. after hearing counsel for the parties nce ihe petitioner has been eiected by a abie to recch any conclusion based on I'he parties eind lookino to the narrow inalily to fne dispute and to do the of votes is necessary. Ultimateiy, he XI-HC-78 \duc|'-qi^lrt«,t?-Cll'<-l<l<», Rlril<4y'< *ii*icoi ^»n^ 3ii^?T tra^ ('3?fg6ra) sn^sTwR'ii'ch aaffsii^STriifi* S^iT8R^Tf§5T3II^?T -3 ordered for recount of votes, j doyand theraafter, respondent wiiFcxIli ii*ioT^''ls'<9 •<R|'(<;I'( ^STf^TSlAsT •ecountmq was taRen oiace 6n rh®aame >jo.4 was declared elected. It would bs rslevmt to rrfention here ths Rule 11 & Rule 12 of the Rules, 1995. ftuis 11 of th®Ruli^s, 1995, enviscges th«procedur'e befor'e the Specified Officer and his pofvers, which read's as under; - (1) Subjeet to the 'ion S specified offlcer sui+fi' ^rov'isions of theseruies, wery 'hall be enquired into by the as nearly, as may be, in accordance with t(ie procedure appiicabie under the Code sf Civil i^r'oeedur'e, 1908, +o -1+ie trial of be ne.cesso.ry for a meirionmaum OT of a.ny witness Provided thcfr it shai the specified offiter To make the substance ofl the e^cmined by him. (2) The sp^cified officer, shail have the powers which are ijested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedur^, 1908, when trying a suit in resSect of tlie foll^wina ma+ters:- (a) discovery a^sd inspection; (blenforcsng t|ie attendance of witnesses. and requirmg th|s deposit of Their expenses; (c) £:omp41iin9 ths production of documentj (d) examit|iation of witnesses on oo.th: receptrion of evidence taken on Xl-HC-78 vjire) <-<1141riA|, U-<fltf<l<l;(et«l<-13'< ^30') *tiHriia?'n^ gn^T!i)ifertT ?pnsiiS?i**i »t IC7 J -^-0:_ an^sr tR?p (icifg<i's) W^200 s^raR^teran^ST [fVwauing wiTnesses cojnmission moro any him to be m| Rui'e 12 of th® Rule^, ti'itnesses by the parties. In This case when the (^i made by respondent No.4 in t!|i Specified Officer was require^ under ftutes 11 d !2 of ths Ruit witnsssss in order to ascer'tdi petitlon and after hearmg 1+ie election petition. But, Without Officer aiiowed "rtie eiection pe) order impugned is per'/erse, iii thi^ ground only'. In the result, the petij (Annexure P-1) is hereby set to decide tiie election petition under'Rules 11 <S 12 of the ftule^ In visw of this No.8086/2005 stond dis.oosed ol for exomination of o^a summoning a"-d eswmining suo p4rson whose evidence, appears to itsriai. <hl't|fri41'1 MWriV'ff&•<! •<|uitci'< iPail^HMi^n 1995, providea regarding production of ietitioner herein disoured the avermsnts w etection oetition 'sn tiiat situction tha '.f to foliow the procedure as envisaged ^s, 1995 and ouqht to ha.ve sxamined ths in the averments iT"a3e in the etectlon lirgumsnts he ought to have decided the ^oliowina tiie procedur-e !eai-ned Speeified 1-ition of respondent No.4, therefore. the !e^al <md scme is iiabie to be set aside on ion is aitowed, order dated 25.7.2005 and the Specified Officer ig direeted jifter foilowing the provisions prescribed 1995. M.(W.)P.No.3658/2005 and I.A. order Sdl- L.C. Bhadoo