SgNOLEBENCH ^^\^{i"" c., "- IN 5@iE HIGK CCre^ OF WOIOWmSCr GHKiVr'EXSGARH A31 BIIASPOR ;¥ £>2afrI^13K3SER ^•ifc^".. ^y ^' ^ \f^ ^" ^' >"' ^".^" '%L^fesPONDEN*S ^£0 .-• ^ c^^ tu W^K PBICTKXOn N0<^l?''z—/20©5 ehhat; Ram Yadav •/©setraro age4 2S('RweQty £ive) yaera culttvatoi: and reai^ent of vAllag®Bagiaall®»Wahell - BtlaigarK ©istrtetRalpur (C.Q.) -co?^ 't^^ VERSUS $ t 1. stafee o£ Gfe»hafetiag<wh thrcmgh Kslie c©ll®cte©c (©isferAjctsassaaes. BlecteltM oifi.ccr), Raipar» Distr^efc ftalpur «, 2« ^e Siab-&ivi,sAonal O^flcer (aiad ·3pe0.tflaa offlcer fer the paoclftayat El®cti<m), Bilatgarh ^ahall Bll»JlQaft» Dittrdcfc Kad.swir /3«. presidi^ ©ffJLcer.Slecfcd.aa (P©lll@gBooth No^ 220) VS.ilag®Bagraalla^ ^'hsil -. Bllaig.Mfh ©i^lsriefeaai^ur ./4« poollag Both GffAcer EleGteiQR (polllng B©@th N0, i?9) ,/5, Retunatiag Offiieer El<BCteA@R, BJllai.garh Taheil Bilaj.garfe, Oistrjueti Raigar 6, Bi.taard. Patel s/©traitra® cultlvator aa<3 resltScaat @f va.tlagts BagmalXa^ ^ahail « Bllaigarb, Distr.ifit Raipur (C.0.) PE'e3%ION XJNB^ AR^ICm_22^>_aBQ_227 G|t_%t^e(^SSRI%^G^OPINDI^ POt 2SSXBB OF MlkNDAMtyS *:. P%OMXBIT3:ONA. CSRCIGRARY B%G. OR I^Nirj^»aPRX^3% mi^, mRECBTON GR GRD^l. ^ C<aate<3..«.2 XI-HC-22 ^^'^n^l^/'^WT^, fa^s'Hy 3?T^T^T f^Ti^'aTit^r '^ri^'^l^ ^R^IT.^CTT^ 3TT^T 'q^? ^...M( ^- ^ 3^?T'^[T^R ^cT 7-11-2005' Shri J.R. Verma, counse! [forthe petjtioner. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Sovjt. Advocate for the State, By this petition under ^rticie 226/227 of the Constitution of India tlie petitioner has qu^stioned the iegairty, propriety and correctness of the order dat^ Of'ficer, Biiaig'arh, in EIectio^ whereby tearned Specified Officerdismissed the eiection petition fjjedby the petitioner herein i^nder Sectjon 122 qf the Panchayat Raj Avam ^ram Swaraj'Adhiniyam, •. Brief fac-ts necessary .f4 that'- the petition.er ' herein herein was decidred elected by wJth the result, the petitioner Section 122 of the Adhiniyam/ Specjfied Officer'- reached t< ^!<L{f<n<li1rl "RT^Tf ^ f^Tst Tf^SK "^ 3Tf^FT ^IT^T d 8-9-2005 passed by the Specified Petition No.26"A-89 (21)/ 2004-05 1993 (for short'the Adh iniyam , 199 3). |r the disposal of this writ petjtion are Idlong with . respondent No.6 . herein contesteci for '.the post. of ^arpanch of ,&ram : Panchayat Bagmalia Tehsil Bilaigarh; District; Raip^ir, • After coyn.ting .respondent No'.6. amargi-n of 2 votes. ..Being'dissatisfjed Iherein: filed.an Eiection. Petition- under [993 in the Court of Specified Officer, Bilajgarh. Learned Specifi^d Officer issued notices to the res'pondents. After >€cordin^ evidence of the parties, iearned the conciusion that the petitioner herein is not abie to make o4t a case for recount, therefore, the petitionwas dismissed. ' , [Tit^ ^fe^f ^s&Qs^sas.s XI-HC-22 ^3^[^ "^ri^s^^t ^RNT^tn '3^ '^TRM^, ^^raTr<o, s^<ni<riy sn^r ^^? '^re^iT^w^ '^ 200 '^^.r' 3?i^T^^rrw^1:^T •-^ 4ie -correc-ttiess coulisel .Learned'. counsel-' for Returning Officer did not assigits were rejected and the impugn{ perverse. He ought-to have order to. ascertdin the 'correc-the regarding' rejection.of the vote^ • Le-arned counsel further ^' '. ••./•• P/6) abng with affidavit (A{ Additional Cotiector, Howevir Additional Coliector., I have heard • learned Having heard learned. co -the iinpugned.order and the:p€ him^eif and pn© Muniram, aiiegations in the peti^ion. PetJtion 'was .that.. at the counting. the iight.went off.ancl tbok place. The evidence of that he was agent of the peti The counting started at 6 p?r| counting there was darkness Thereafter, the counting petitioner argued that iearned any reason on the baiiot papers which jgn^d order of the Specified Officer is sui^moned at ieast the 'rejected votes in. of decision of Retuming: Officer argued that-the co'nipiaint (Annexure- jinexure-P/7) was submjtted to the \ was not' acc^pted by. .the toolk chl<'-{[<rs<^rl ^H<riT ^ fest ^M^s< '^a^R'^n^r for.theparties.'-' - . •. jnsei for. the' • parties',. I ^ have; perused 'rtion. The petitioner herein exam ined Heeraiaij in order to prove the main ground raised in the Election Centre No.220, at the time of during that period somemanipuiatson namely Heeraial is to the effect tioner in the Counting Centre No.220. and as after. commencement ,of the. therefore, the light was instailed. piace which was conducted in his •arld T^jie Cou|iting ^viTness pre3.ence. The petitjoner secured 102 votes wherefl^r^^rning ! l XI-HC-22 ^^f '^iNld<M, ^Til^^Ko, 'f^^S^^ /^ 3TI^T:T?5TO ^TR^IIW^T^ •M 3T?^T^T f^i^^T^l '^rRNT^ri^? ^TT^T'^IT^T'^f^T —^>- •^qfoqU^I^^^ f^Sjf^^R ^ atf^TR w^r . candidate -Bihari secured 165 there was no irregularity in tb wi'tness himself has stated counting. Even if we took into thej herein, he himsejf submifted Presiding O.ffscerdidnot give In the . Counting 'Centre No^ irregularit^ took'place when th| Heeraiai has sybmitted .that'th'l Learned courtsel fdr the has stated that in favour of favour of Ch hatram • -102 votes .In-viewof th.is evideoce, therei wi'lness and other witnesses, order.to ascertain th© I fail to understand how| prayer can be allowed. Tne Petition is .requir-ed to raise.^i thereafter he is further cfinchiog and iegal evidence. ^ the petjtioner received 102 oN corTectrless ^o.tes and 11 vo.tes 'v^ere reje.cted and counting., Therefore, the petitioner's t|iat there was no irregutarity In the evidence of -Chhatram, the petitioner Ithat he secured 267 votes but the' l^jrn CQunting sl.ip .and 'rtie light went off 1220. Hs further submitted that iight went off whereas, his own agent ire was no irregularity. ^etjtjoner further argued- that.BansJla! |ihan 167 votes were cast whereas,: in l^ere 'cast an'd lO.votes were rejected. iis contrddiction in the evidenceiof this •.such rejected votes be summoned in 8 on th& evidence of this witness such a betitioner wh'o has fijed the':"Eiectron ^round In the petition for recount and reqi|i.red to estabiish the same. by cogent, •^erely on the evsdence Qf.BansilaI that whereas, Bihari received 167 votes, votes prayer of the'petitio.ner for recount Qannot be atSowed. lo^er XI-HC-22 ^TT^I'SFT f^iN'^n^i ^Hi.<^ <Hf^a ^. ^"^r ';^FTI^T, ^Tii<i^^, N<vi[^y 3TT^T Xj^ ''qT^^TWW^'***'*****'^***"^*^*^"*"*"*^ ..^W' 3n^T'^fr^R ^flrr -A is requi red to raise .. and e^ irregubrily.. at the. 'time.. of ~. 4)unting. Bdnsibt. ha5 stated. that no. irregubrit^ took pbce at thej evidence of Chhatram' it ha| votes because that was the from the record .that the pet the end.of counting. 'Even the-. argument ac{ chl^f<n4lr1 'RTTOt* ^ ft1c3' ^T'^K '^'3?NH^TT^T tablish'. the. grouncS that. there' was ] ti'me of •countin9 and .even .as per the t. not- • . explained that' h.ow the irregularity took piace and t}iere is no evidence to establish the aliegations which have been rjdsed in the petition and there is no evidence that the petitioner h^d moved an applicatipn for recounting of votes at the end of counl^ing a!)e9Jn9 irreguiarjty in counting of first stage where the petitioner was requircd to raise the objectio?| regarding jrreguiarjt/. But, it appears tJQner Had not raised any objection at vanced by learned counsel ' 'for the petitioner that the Returning ^fficer had not assigned any reason for rejectjon of, the .v.otes, the Petition, nor.any evidence has argument ias''of no avaii to thc this stage f.orthe first time. As. far as question of th Isame was not raised in th.e . Election been ied' to that effect, therefore, this petitioner,' same cannot be. allowed at 3 complaint Anhexure-P/6 is concerned/ this is'a memo of revisionagai^st the order of the Specified Officer dated 8-9-2005. As no re^isibn lies against the order of the Specified Gffscer to the Cout^t of Additional Collector, therefore/ in the first instance if such a petition was not accej^^^^^ the vd-c^j <-qiqic)^, »TTl<<-l'll<o,RlriW^ *ll*1Cfl^*TT^ CT^^T^rf^rfcp ^ff3n^$T?TOra:F Barve 3TT^?T q^P (4c|i^<s|<e;) ^200 ?^IT^^ri^r3Ti^$T safte refiised Additional Collector, then ther{ Even otherwise, when the Add| petition. The petitioner ough' post or made a complaint t^ acceptance. Such petition can at the time of fiiing of the the allegations the petitione| showing thatthe same was In view of the foregoing^ petitioner has not been abie t^ order of the Specified Offic^r I am of the considered opinio to estabiisH any iiiegality or in petitlon is iiable to be dismiss4d Consequently, M.(W.)P. stand disposed^of. CPI<4[^<TI^ ^l+1C5Y^'f^^ ^Rt^l^ ^3ri^Tf3n^$T ^ was no irreguhrity committed by him. Itionai Coliector refused to receive the to have sent the same by registered the Higher Offlcer regarding non- |be t/ped and annexed with the petition ^ therefore, in order to substantiate ought to have filed some material by the Additional Collector. [discussion, I am of the opinion that the make out a case to interfere with the and for the reasons mentioned above. that the petitioner has not been abie :irmit/ in the impugned order. The writ and the same is dismissed. No.4197/2005 and l.A. No.9054/2005 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge SP/FS/2005-20,000 ^^ ^ ^