IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227] NO. Q g g £ [2010 PETITIONER /I‘anV1r Aalam Son of Dil ‘i £0WAP¥HCWIIM4 Mohammad, aged about 32 years, if: R/ o. Village Sirsi, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surguja (C.G.) EEB’SUS RESPONDENTS Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), . Suxajpur, District Surajpur (c.G.)‘ 2. Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Son of \o Haliram Yadav, R/o. Village Sirsi, ‘1‘ Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surguja (C.G.), ‘—*Ej£ “Cad": i 3. Arun Singh, Presiding Officer, w Booth No. 49, Village Sirsi, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surguja (/ (CG), u )& a xx, a '69 u ccupl- f5 a ; g” 4. Amit Gupta, Returning Officer, Bhaiyathan, District Surguja (C.Gi), _.. 1v rm a a 19 pkim‘v‘j” N‘c" 3 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE M CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Particulars of the Petitioner: - f AS given above in the cause title. 1a?» HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0. 4457 of2010 PETITIONER ‘ Tanvir Aalam / VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. resent: Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 4” day of October, 2010) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Officer i.e. Election Tribunal‘without following statutory provisions of law, has decided the election petition, and the election of Panch in Ward No.8, Gram Panchayat Sirsi, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surguja held on 3 1/01/2002, has been declared as null and void by order dated 28/07/2010 (Annexure P/4). It is further submitted that the Election Tribunal without framing the issues has examined the witnesses and‘ other documentsrin an illegal and arbitrary manner and contrary to the provisions of law. On the other hand, Shri Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that though the issues were not framed, but the case was properly considered. P Learned counsel appearing for the State, submits that statutory procedural requirement has not been complied with. This Court in Parvatz’a v. Padmim' & Others] and Shyam Ratan v. Siyaram & Othersz held that no election petition can be decided without framing issues. 5. Again this Court in Balaram Rathore v. State ofChhattisgarh & 0thers3 after considering various provisions held as under: “9. In the case on hand, there is a material denial of the proposition, as affirmed by the applicant before the election tribunal. Thus, framing of issues and examination of witnesses is necessary'before passing the order. The impugned order passed by. the election tribunal, it appears to have been passed without complying with the substantial procedure as provided under the provisions of law”. 6. In view of foregoing, the impugned order dated 28/07/2010 (Annexure P/4) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Election Tribunal to restore in its original file and decide the case, in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Since the petition was filed long back, it is expected that the election petition may be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 12005 (2) ccLJ 335 1 w.P. No.4270 orzoos (decided on ‘19~1 1-2008) 3 w.P.(C) No.3573 ofzoio (decided on 31-08—2010)