1N THE HIGII COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR wRIT PETITION (221nm. u Hgé [2010 PETITIONER / Smt. Manmati wife of Hariram, aged about 45 years, R/o. village Sirsi, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil Bhajyathan, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS ESPONDENTS 1. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), X Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) Rajendra Prasad\ Yadav, Son of Hariram Yadav, R/o. Village Sirsi, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surguja (C'G‘L ~‘ AV?“ CQVA’ 3. Tanvir Aalam ‘Sen of Di} Mohammad, R/o. D Village Sirsi, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surguja (C.G.), Arun Singh, Presiding Offlcer, Booth No. 49, Village Sirsi, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surguja (C.G.), ’ 5. Amit Gqpta, Returning Officer, i Bhaiyathan, District Surguja (C . G.) , y w 3x owl} (M\“\ 5” Q? k WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Wk R / , 5 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) NO.4456 OF 2010 PETITIONER V Smt. Manmati Versus ESPONDENTS Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) & Others (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Ms Meena Shastri, Advocateifor the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer forthe State. Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 18th day of October, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner contested the election for the post of Panch of Ward No.11 of Gram Panchayat, Sirsi, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Sarguia, and was declared as a Ward Panch (returned candidate). Thereafter, the petitioner was elected as Upsarpanch also. The respondent No '2 herein filed an election petition being election petition No.12-A/89 2009—10 (Rajendra Prasad Yadav v. Tanvir Alam & Others) before the election Tribunal challenging the election of respondent No.3 herein, who was returned candidatefor the post of Panch of Ward No.8 of Gram Panchayat, Sirsi, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Sarguja, According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in the said election petition, there was no challenge to the election of Ward No.11 and even the petitioner was not impleaded as party/ respondent. Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, the election Tribunal has declared th‘e election of the petitioner from Ward No.11 as Panch also, as void, by the impugned order dated 28—7-2010 (Annexureir— P/3) in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Before passing R e i o th mpugned order,‘ proper opportunity f hearing was not afforded o th it ha t e petioner and order s been passed against the principles of natural justice. Thus, this petition to quash the impugned order in respect of Ward No.1 1, his Court by order date 12——2010 issued notice to the T d 8 espondents and as n intrim measue, stayed the effect & r a e r opetion of the ipugned order dated 28—7—2010. Thereafter, the ra m tter was listed on -10—2010. However, on the request of learned ma 5 counsel appeing for the Ste, it was further directed to list the ar ta attr after a week. No return has been filed on behalf of the me respondents. Be tha as it may, the elecion Tribunal has no right to declare the t t election of the petitione fr Ward No.11, as Panch, as void, r om ecau there was no challenge in the election petition to the electon of the petitioner as Panch of Ward No,11. The election i iunal without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the Trb ce, dlared the election of the petitioner as void, which is not as ec sustai n or h nable i law. Accdingly, te impugned order dated ‘-‘2 (Aexure — P/3) passed by the election Tribunal in 287010 nn respect of election of Ward No.1 of Gram Panchayat, Sirsi, Tahsil 1 h Ditct Bhaiyatan, sri Sarguja, is quashed. ln the result, t rit etition is allowed o the extent indicated above he w p t N order asto cost. o s Satish K. Agnihoth‘ Judge ll" Gowri (:21 bse