«Ma V ’29” §zmLE §EN€§§ % IN TI—E HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (C) No. Wf/zom gantosh Kumar, S/o De Sahab Baghel, aged about 50 years, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kurmi- Gundra, R/o village Kurmi Gundra, Tahsil Patan, Distt. Durg (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS :1./ Hula Ram Verma,’S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Venna, aged about 49 years, R/o Village Kumi-Gundra, Tahsil Patan, Distt. Ding (C.G.) Qs“ 2. Dani Ram Aadil, S/o Jayata Ram wa";__,_.;::- Aadil, aged about 36 years, \/@§' 3. Nohar Lal S/o Sukhdev Sahu, aged about 38 years No 2 and 3 both R/o V1llage Kunm- Gundra, Tah511 Patan, Dlstt. Durg /(C.G.) 4. Returning Officer, VPa'ncliayat, Patan, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 5.,» Presiding Oflicer, Booth No. 197, Gram Panchayat Kurmi—Gundra, fatan, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 6. Presiding Officer, Booth No. 198, Gram Panchayat Kurmi—Gundra, g Patan, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 7.! Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Patan, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ‘ 8. ’1 Sfate of Chhattisgarh, Through 111a Secretary, Panehayat RESPONDENTS RIT PETITION UNDE OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIAIE ‘ rWM If; (M _d/) \ \ /\ W R ‘ ‘ ' ' W E @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2552 of 2010 PETITIONER : Santosh Kumar. _ VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Hula Ram Verma & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘ SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. AgnihotliLJ. Present: Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 7 and 8. - ORDER g ORAL! (Passed on 02“ day of August, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Patan, District Durg, in Election Petition N0. 17 A-89/2009-10 whereby the respondent No. 1 has been declared as returned candidate and has further been declared Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kurmi— Gundra, Tahsil Patan, District Durg. I Learned counsel appearing for‘the petitioner submits that the learned Election Tribunal has decided the matter without framing issues and without affording proper opportunity to the parties to adduce evidences, documents, thus, the impugned order is bad in law. Shri Agrawal relies on a decisions ‘of this Court rendered in Parvatia v. Padmim' & Others] and Shyam Ratan v. Siyaram & OtherSZ in support of his submission that no election petition can be decided without framing issues and examining the witnesses produced by the parties. 1 2005 (2) CGLJ 335 \WP No.4270 of 2005( 2 \n, decided on 19-11-2008) \ i r @7 4. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 as well as Shri Thakur, learned ‘Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 7 and 8, fairly submit that the impugned order suffers from deficiency and infirmity on account of the above stated reasons. Thus, the impugned orders may be quashed and further the matter may be remitted back to the election tribunal for deciding the same in accordance with law after framing issues and examining witnesses properly. Learned counsel-for the parties further submit that a stipulated time may be fixed for decision ofthe election petition in View of the fact that there has been a delay on account of the impugned decision, which could not sustain in the eye of law. Having regard to the facts situation of the case and considering the submissions made hereinabove, as the principle of law is well settled that no election petition can be decided finally without framing proper issues and examining witnesses, if produced by the parties, the impugned order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to restore in its original file and decide the case in accordance with law. In View of the foregoing, it is expedient and proper to direct the election tribunal to consider and decide the case afresh, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petition is allowed to the above extent with no order asto costs. Certified copy as per rules.