IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION No. ....4ié§... of 2001 Budhuram S/o Balki aged about 48 years, g. SaEaami, resident'of Putekela, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, gyhattisgarh .. .t PETITIONER VERSUS "r Luxman aged about 22 years S/o Chotelal Satnami, resident of Chamra—Barpali, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Shri R.D.Chelak, Sub—Engineer, Hasdeo Sub Minor, Division No.2, Presiding Officer, Polling Booth No. 128, Village Chamra Barpali, Tahsil Sakti, District Janajgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. Shri Ramprasad Chandra, Pradhan Pathak, Keri Bandha, Presiding Officer Polling Booth No. 129, Village Chamra Barpali, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh). Kumari Purnima Shrivastava, Tahsildar and Prscribed Officer and Returning Officer, Panchayat Election Sakti , Tahsil Sakti , District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) . Q” ’ Q u ‘ ”X? Vi1 L' Nirwacha-n Shri S R . Sahu, Yachika) Prescribedk Camp Sakti, 9i a Tahsil (Panchayat Sakti, District wmna (Chhattisgarh). RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE SEC. 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND IA XIaHC-ZQ ¥azmmaqi m¥@;%aEQI @ 3mm p No. 432001 i 02 M§ V \ 0.2.. at all w / w $ .mmqarfaaaa) Wmmufaa m&wa?» &W¥&€H $Wa§%a $mm$amw§ $§ §ER -€5w%ua&w .. 2 . inasmuch as the‘said peti1 A tloner/ Secondly, 1t 15 ‘ an tO‘him by the election peti- without any authority giV( 1n this behalf. petltlon could not have be M F” VWM Mr 1993 and Rules 19‘5. In 1 the election petition has depos it of Rs.500/- within to the order sheet,’it is a sum of $.259/— was dep was deposited only on 22/ Ithe fact that the aforesa‘ 1lso contended that the election )en entertained inasmuch asW of M P. Panchayat Ra] Adhiniyv , of RLle 7 erms of Rule 7 o: the RNes l9°5 to be presented with a security 3G days. Drawingsh§ attentions pointed out that on 16/2/2009 i nsited. Another sum of h. 250/- 3/2000. ‘ held by M P High Court v Ld rules are‘mahdatory. has been Rule 8 of the sald petltlon 1s liable to be not followed. It 1s cont is made, no finding has beezxgiven in which security deposit / by the prescribed author; Clicumstances that have b to me that there hes been of Rule 7 of the said Rul said Rule ie mandatory, 1 petiti%n ought to have be ’ conditions laid dow under the Rules. Ix, 0.35. 1/200 1 v50,0()0. \r \ :ion was submitted‘by an Advocate Rules are mandatory. Lde 1999 JLJ, volume—l, Page no.200. Rules stipulates that the election rejected if Rule 7 is Violcted or inded that as regards the manrer -y. In the few §n§ facts and =en stated above, it a“ is clear contravention of the previsions v as in the present case. Since the must hold that the election i 3n rejected for non—fulfilment /e _ M\ v GRRRJWFSBI] 1 V \v 3 .4 on this In the result, The 'etition is allowed. impugned order issued on 3 /12/2000 by the Préqcriyed Authxity is set-aside. l‘stand restoreatas Sarpa ch. of the writ petitioner sha sequently, the CO [ ®%%@ Ce rti fi ed copy tod qr Wr