fff- ^ As^f^ ^ / •f- '. Q^^hfTf J.?'- lt-0, IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ_Petition_{C) ^To._5_912 of_2005 Petitioner Smt. Kunti Bai, W/o Dhanshyam Chandra, Defendant Aged about 30 years, R/o Arasaya, P.S. & Tahsil Jaijpur, District Janjgir -Champa (Chhattisgarh) Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Social Welfare, Panchayat Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti (Specified Officer - Janpad Panchayat Jaijpur), Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh) B. P. Gupta, Tehsildar - Jaajpur, (Presidin^ Officer), P.S. 8c Tahsil Jaijpur, District Janjgir - Champa (Chhattisgarh). R. N. Maina (Surveyor), Assistant Land Conseryator Officer, Sakti, Tahsil & District Sakti (Chhattisgarh). Snit. Hamabai, W/o Gyan Chandra, Aged about 30 years, R/o Village - Arasaya, P.S. 85 Tahsil Jaijpur, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Saurabh Sharraa, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 & 2. Q R_D E R , (Passed on this 25U1 Day of November, 2008] 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29.7.2006 (Annexure P/4), passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sakti, District - Janjgir Champa in Revenue Case No. 12/A- 89/04-05. 2. The petitioner and the respondent No.5 (Smt. Hema Bai) were rival candidates in the election held on 23.1.2005 for the post of Panch from the Ward No. 3 of Village Panchayat Arsia, Tahsil i, Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa. The respondent No. 5 filed an election petition (Annexure P/l) under Section 122 of the L 7. 8. ^- 9. '.l. on various dates and after surnmoning the relevant records and affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, it was found by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti that the petitioner got 16 votes and respondent No. 5 got 25 votes out of 41 valid votes, whereas, 2 votes were declared as invalid out of total caste 43 votes. In view of the above, it is clear that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) found strong and cogent reasons in directing for recounting of votes and thereafter passing of the order that the votes polled in favour of the petitioner have been counted in favour of other candidate and as such, result and certificate was vitiated. Thus, it is apparent that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has rightly found that the will of people was in favour ofthe respondent No.5. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing is contrary to the facts on record. Notice was issued and proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to all the parties. All the records were examined and thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti, recorded his findings that by-mistake it was recorded that respondent No. 5 got '15' votes instead of '25' votes. It is well settled principle of law that will of people, expressed through election, cannot be set aside on a vague and flimsy ground, as is made in the instant case, except in cases of gross violation of norms, rules, regulations and statutory provisions. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself from v'? ^ ^ 7. ',"). on various dates and after suramoning the relevant records and affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, it wa.s found by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti that the petitioner ;ot 16 votes and respondent No. 5 got 25 votes out of 41 valid votes, whereas, 2 votes were declared as invalid out of total caste 43 votes. In view of the above, it is clear that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) found strong and cogent reasons in directing for recounting of votes and thereafter passing of the order that the votes polled in favour of the petitioner have been counted in favour of other candidate and as such, result and certificate was vitiated. Thus, it is apparent that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has rightly found that the will of people was in favour ofthe respondent No.5. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing is contrary to the facts on record. Notice was issued and proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to all the parties. All the records were exarained and thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti, recorded his findings that by-mistake it was recorded that respondent No. 5 got '15' votes instead of '25' votes. It is well settled principle of law that will of people, expressed through election, cannot be set aside on a vague and flimsy ground, as is made in the instant case, except in cases of gross violation ofnorms, rules, regulations and statutory provisions. This Court, in exercise of its supervisoiy jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself from 11. 12. Tliakur interfering with the order .passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. In view of the foregoing, this petition is de hors the foundation and merits. It is accordingly dismissed, summarily. Consequently, M(W)P No. 4430/06, application for grant of ad- interim writ, stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge :^B--'