c IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (. .^^"/ SnfilsBegiii W.P.fO N0. ^\^ /2010 PETITIQNER ;^^':", y'^",. ^-v" / Smt. Bhagwantin Bai W/o. Rain Singh Yadav, aged about 36 years, R/o. Village Ruda, Gram :^-" Panchayat Bhendra, Post Kasaunda, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. 3. / Smt. Shanti Bai W/o. Raju Lal Sahu, aged about 36 years, Smt. Dharmin Bai W/o. Rambharosa Sahu, aged about 36 years, Smt. Dhaneshwari Bai W/o. Surendra Kumar Nishad, aged about 37 years, Res. no. 1 to 3 are R/o. Village Bhendra, Post Kasaunda, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) R.eturning Officer, Panchayat, Block Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) Shri Atul Vishwakarma, Returning Officer, BIock Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) 4 ^. ?^ 5. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Patan, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) 6. State of Chhattisgarh, through District Election Officer, Election Office, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA aw HIGH COURT OF CHHAITISOARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETITION (0 No. 2613 of2010 PETmONER RE8PONDENTS Smt. Bhagwantm Bai. VERSUS Smt. Shaati Bai & Others. WRIT PET1TION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTHVnON OF INDIA SB: Hon»bleShri Satish K. AsuBiotri, J. Present: Shri Santosh Yadu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shd Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate forths respondent No. 1. Shd N.N.Roy*, Panel Lawyer fortiie State/respondeat No. 5^. ORI>ER<ORAL) (Passed on 10 day of August, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash fhe ord^r dated 19.05.2010 (Aimexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 5, i.e. Sub ENvisional Officer (Revenue) PataiL, District Durg, whereby Ae resipondent No. 5 has directed for recounting ofthe votes for the election of Sarpanch, of Gram Panchayat, Bhendara, Development Block Gunderdehi, District Durg.heldon 31.01.2010. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner siabmits that the leamed Election Tribunal has ordered for recounting of votes without fi-ammg issues and wifhout affording proper opporhinity to the parties to adduce evidences, documents. Thus, the impugaed order is bad in law. 3. Shri Yadu reties on a decisions of this Court rendered in Pc^vatia v. Padmmi & Other^ mdShyam Ratan v. Siyaram & Other/ m support of his submission that no election petition ^m be decided without frammg issues and examining fhe witne^ses produced by the parties. 4. Shri Khetrapal^ leamed counsel app^ring fbr fhe respondeait No.l as well as Shri Roy, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for fhe State/ 1 2005 (2) CGLJ 335 2 WP No.4270 of 2005 (decided on 19-11-2008) .^'^^^ ?':.^^ . ii J ^ ^::^t"^!'w^ f; ^,'^^^ 8. ^ respondent No. 5 and 6, fairly sulnnit th^ tfae inyugfted order suffers from deficiency and infimiity oa account of fhe above stated reasons. Thus, the impugned order may be quashed and ftrfher the matter may be remitted back to tfae election tribunal for deciding Ifae same in accordance wifh law after jfrmning issues and exaniimng witnesses properly. Leamed counsel for fhe parties further submit fhat a stipalated time may be fixed for decision oftiie election petition in view ofthe fact that fhere has been a delay on account oflhe impu^ied decisioa, which could not sustain in fhe eye oflaw. Having regard to fhe facts situation ofthe caae and consideriag the submissions made hereinabove, as the principle of law is well settled that no election petition can be decided finally without fi^ming proper issues and examinmg witnesses, if produced by the parties, fhe impugned order dated 19.05.2010 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to fhe Tribuxial to restore in its origmal file and decide the case in accordance with law. In view offhe foregoing, it is expedient and proper to direct tiie election tribunal to consider and decide llie case afresh, in accordaiice wilfa law and on its own merits, as early as possible. Thc petition is allowed to the above extent with no order asto costs, Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit