Nr 1>\ IN THE HtGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT BIIASPUR rCHHATTISGARHI 8h@b Benct M.C.C. ^^ /2006 APPLICANT ^ \^L/" ^..Wfi^ -%r MJ3. /^w ^ ^••-! vy NQ^-APPLICANTS ^ ^ ^/ , Kaushal Kumar Chandrakar, S/o. Bhirkho Ram, aged about 45 years, R/o. Vitlage- Cheecha, Post-Bhathena, Tah. Patan, Distt. Durg (C.G.). VERSUS ^IA^ 3Tr"7't^. '%,'"'> ^^" y' State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Panchayat 8s Social Welfare Deptt. D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) ^ The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Patan, Distt.Durg (C.G.) 3. Janpad Panchayat, Patan. Through secretary, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 4^ Jay Prakash, S/o. Bhim Nirmal aged about 28 years, R/o. Village Cheecha, Post Bhathena, Tah. Patan, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^ APPLICATION FOR CLARIFICATION 85 SUITABLE DIRECTION _-„__^-.—-L.. XI-HC-22 w^i^r 'f^T[^3TT^^ ^TRN'Tfi^ V... -g-^-^iijH^ ^^pre-, f^r^ 3??^?T 'q^^ ,c;c.^^ vs ^?ra^T%ui*>- 200-^ '^^r* ^^i ^H^T ^r^n 8-5-2006 Mr, Praveen Das, coimselj Mr, G.K, Benwal, Deputyj applicants No.l & 2. Mr. Kunal Das, counsel Heaid. By fhe instaat applicatioja, appropriate direction to the decide the election petition of fhis appUcatlon, it has been that this Court has quashed petition, tlie Spect&ed Ofl5cer is |ac I fail to uiiderstaiid how! order of fhis Gourt dated petition proceediugs have been of fhe Sub Divisional Officer the ground that fhe S.D.O. ftie procedure as envisaged Panchayats (EIection Petitions, for Membership) Rules, 1995.J reqiiired to first frame issues thereafter he has to allow fhei support oftheir pleadings and decide the petltton on its merit4 for fhe appUcaat, Advocate General for the State/non- f^r noH-appUcant No,4/ ^nfe^ •m^ff^ t^zi-^f^R ^^Ti^FT^TF^? a prayer has been made to issue Sjpecified Officer (respondent No.2) to before him as per law. In para 5 tnentioned that under mistaken belief entire proceediQgs of the- election decidmg fhe election pfetitioil. fhe Specified Ofiicer is treatiag the >-2005 as that the wliole election jqziashed, On the coritx^iy, fhe order >r| re-count of fhe votes was quashed on •passed fhe order wifhout fonowiag. Rules 11 & 12 ofthe CIiliattisgarh pomipt Practices aiid Disqualification Therefore, tih'e Speci&ed OfiBcer is l^ased on the pleadmgs of fhe parties/ parties to addiice fheir evidence m 4fter hearing counsel for fhe parties to peu^ing t|he islaot 141-9 forlT€ ha|s unaer _—-—...- -R^ XI.HC-78 *tl*IC»IW*tl<^ vtwi -<tiqioq^ y-^^iq^ (^rii^i^ _,,^M.c.c.^^/ 3n^T^j^i ?WT3nt^Tri»Nict» ^ Soma ,/v\e . v'^> y 3TI^rXR^{*^lyi<g) 61 Wl200^ i^HfiR^f^rOT^T s_ petiqon In fhe circumstaiices dispose of fhe ek^tfon procedurc as envisaged unde: TheM.C.C.is In view of this order, IJ disposed jof accoid'iiigly, s|i.No.554/2006 also stands disposed of v(Wff^f fe^^(Rt^N ^3lRl*l3n^5T fhe Spect&ed Officer is dfcrected to ^n, at fhe eartlest, after followiag the tlie Rules, 1995. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge I 1 I" ^- :1