„»»- u U.UUKI ur ut- it Petition SCl No. 4383of2007 Smt. Shakun Bai Verma, aaed about 36 ^'iSaiS, yv;Vh.?Uii \J'€gii& rStSai 'f vIII-Rn'p' Msinnpsi?!;^)' Tfah?;i 'if ^ isffi^^^^^' t®4^*du3^^'^^t^a ^ s ^'g jr (CG). irma, resldsnt rict imi. Ti rani Bai, wife of Shri Kunj La! Vermi 2. Smt. Panwati Bai. v/jfe of Shri Maya Ram Verma Smt. Rajni Sahu, wife of Sarju Lai Sahu Smt Rekha. wife ofShri Ramesh Smt. Sarita, wife ofShri Sohan Lai Verma Smt. Rajani Bai, wife of Shri Sarju Ram 8. Smt. Gomati Verma, wit'e of Brij Lal Verma rf •nl resMent or •• Arang, Distri Sub Divisl ?--4it (CG). t'^^I inaie !ie aii' tish ;.As Shfi Rahui Blrthare, counsei for fhe petiti Smt. Savita Tivi/ari, counsei for the respo Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate G< respondent No.9 M (Passed on this25 oiay ofNoysmber, 200S ty this petition, the petitloner chay.enges the iegaiity and vaiidity of the order dated 4-12-2006 (Annexure-P/3) passed bv the Sub Divisional Officsr, Abhanour/Arans. in case No.16-C/145 Yesr 2005-06 v/hereby tha election petition fiied by the petitioner., herein, has'been rejected. LaCsiiteai, 2) The that the petitioner as well as the elsction for the post of.Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, S*, •ii.'U Ut lil^ l.'df&a?, ffis contestes tn } ^V ^cXS-SfSKS^ ^ election v/as heid on 20-1-2005. Sn the said elecfion, the respondent No.1 was elected as Sarpanch. Accordmg to the petltioner, the Presidjng Officer was not provided the baSSot papers in a proper manner and the respondent No.1 has aiso adopted some corrupt practice at the time of election. The petitloner made a compiaint befors the Coliectoi' by raising ai! of his grievances, but the same has not been decsded. Therefore, the petitioner filed an etection petjtion before the respondent No.9. The respondent No.i by order dated 4-12-2006 (Annexure-P/3) dismisseci the same. Thus, thts petition. 3) Leamed counse! aDDearina for the oetitioner wou!d submit that whlSe .dismissing 'the eiection petltion, the respondent No.9 has not properiy appreclated the facts and cireumstances of the case in its ietter and spirit. The respondent No.9 has not framed the issues and without giving any opportunity ot' hearing to produce the witnesses, dismlssed the siection petition. 4} Per contra, iearned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 as wel! as the State supported the order passed by the respondent No.9. 5) i have heard learned counse! appearing for the parties, perused the pieadings and the documents appended thereto. The finding rscorded by the learned Court be!ov/ is that the petlttoner has not produced any evidence or fiied any document In support of her stetement. Thus, the allegations made by the petitioner cannot be accepted for v/ant of suffident materiai. The aliegation made by the petitionar must b®established on the basis of sufficient and cogent reasons supported by docuinents and evidenc-es; but in the present case nothing has been done except makini certain aMegatlons. Thus, 'the impugned order dated 4-12-2006 passsd by the Sub Divisional Officer js just and proper. 6) It js wei! settied principte of law that wili of peopSe, sxpressed through etection, cannot be set aside on a vagus and fllmsy ground, as is made in the instant case. exceot in cases of aross violstion of norms, ruies, f" reguiations and statutory provis'ions. 7) In vlew of ths rorsgoing, i have not found any jurisdictional error, infirm'iy or irregularity m the impugned ord&r dated 4-12-2006 (Annexure- P/3) passed by the. Sub Djviaonai C'fficer. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- satis]l^AgnAo^ 'e 1 VI. :1:;1 "; ^