PETxTIONER &%wfnqsfgtge?v~l’ i M: . J— V)’: V? ( ‘2 0:9 W M . 50 o RESPONDENTS g ‘ > Ashok Kumar Jangade S/o Shri Jangade, aged about 43 years, R/ o Vill—Dondekala ward no- 17, Police Station Dharsiwa, Tahsil and Distt Raipur (C . G.) [A VERSUS Feraha Ram 1. State. of C.G., through the Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development, D .K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, District - Rajpur (Chhattisgarh) Shri Ramkumar Sahu, The Presiding Offrce,Panchayat ElectionNillage’Dondekala Tah. 85 Distt ~ Raipur (CG) 4. The Returning Officer, Panchayat Election,village - Dondekala, Tahsil and District a Raipur (c.G.) w. P. (227) No. awgg OF 2010 3g§§§i§ 3ENm‘E [$ ; PJ‘I HVWA 5 ‘K . Chandra Shekhar Verma S / 0 Shri Rewaram Verma R/o Village ~ Dondekala, Police Station « Dharsiwa, Tah. &, Distt — Raipur (CG) \ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / ‘ has been a delay on account of the impugned decision, which could not sustain in the eye of lawc Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short “the Rules, 1995”) provides for procedure before the specified officer and his powers. lt‘ is prescribed that subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shall be enquired into by the-specified officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC"), to the trial of suits. The proviso to sub—rule (1) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995 provides that it shall only be necessary for the specified officer to make a memorandum of the substance of evidence of any witness examined by him. 7. Rule 11 ofthe Rules, 1995 reads as under; “11. Procedure before the specified officer and his powers— (1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shall be enquired into by the specified officer'as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits: Provided that it shall only be necessary for the specified officer to make a memorandum of the substance of evidence of any witness examined by him. (2) The specified officer, shall have the powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit in respect of the following matters:-— (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses, and requiring the deposit of their expenses; (c) compelling the production of document; examination of witnesses on oath; reception of evidence taken on affidavit; and issding commission for examination of witnesses and summoning and examining suo moto any person whose evidence, appears to him to be material.” (d) (9) (f) Order XIV of the CPC provides for settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of taw or on issues agreed upon. Rule 1 Order XIV of the CPC provides that issues arise when a material proposition of fact or iaw is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other shaH form the subject of a distinct issue' and thereafter, provisions ave been made for framing of issues. Rule 3 Order XIV of the CPC provides for materiai from which issues may be framed and Ruie 4 provides for examination of witnesses and documents before framing lSSueS. n the case on hand, there is a material deniai of the proposition, as affirmed by the applicant before the election tribunal. Thus, framing of issues and examination of witnesses is necessary before passing the order. The impugned order, it appears, has been passed without complying with the substantial procedure as provided under the provisions of law. Having regard to the facts situation of the case and considering the submissions made hereinabove, as the principle of law is well settled that no election petition can be decided finaiiy without framing proper issues and examining witnesses, if produced by the parties, the impugned order dated 21—06—2010 (Annexure P/t) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to restore in its original file and decide the case in accordance with law. In view of the foregoing, itis expedient and proper to direct the election tribunal to consider and decide the case afresh, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as early as possible. ln the result, the petition is allowed to the above extent with no order sto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge h i a l