IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT WRIT PETITION ‘C, No.Mt [ 2010 BILASPUR f J, ’ PETITIONER Bhanu s/ o jai singh Singh r/ o Village— Podaguda post — Sadgud Tehsil -— Jagdalpur District - Bastar(C.G.) VERSUS {a Smt. Aasmati ‘ W/o Mahé§h Sethia Gram panchyat ~ Biloree, Post a Kurandi,Tehsi1 ~ Jagdalpur,District — Bastar(C.G.) ‘ Sub Divisional officer(revenue officer W '‘/ i SE K 3,\ j ’007n'&" )86 prescribed Jagdalpur,Distric£—Bastar \ Angad s/ o manbodh R/ o Village biloree,post- V Kurandi, tehsil —jagda1pur, district— Bastar 4 Lgqch‘mder If!” p ' // 3 \ . , l Q A1 ® ~‘ s/ o Inder,r/ o Village- Karkapa1,poat - hatkachorafwchyat— Biloree,tehs'11 jagdalpur,district - Bastar 5 Neharulal S / oKamlochan Village ~ Biloree,post Kurandi,tehsil- jagdalpur,district Bastar 6 Sadhu ram S / o Sudru Ram, Village —— Sadgud,Grampanchyat— Biloree,Tehsi1— jagdalpurDistrict—BastaL (Returning officers of polling X booth no.92-98’were made party by there name in election petition, since they are not necessary party in this petition therefore they are not being arrayed as respondent in this petition) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLJzz 25:4 a F CONSTITUTION wlé PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As stated above in thé cause title. '1. I? 5; ,‘ PARTICULARS OF TH¢><RESPONDENTS: ll \\? i‘r‘ p 1 2005(2) CGLG 335 I 2 w.P. No.427o of 2005 (decided on 19-1 1-2008) 9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.6722 OF 2010 PETITIONER Bhanu Singh Versus RESPONDENTS SmtA Aasmati & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Coristitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present 1— Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Subhash Yadav, Advocate for the respondent No.1. ,Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 23'd‘day of November, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Officer i.e. Election Tribunal without following statutory provisions of law, vide the impugned order dated 29—10—2010 hasvelecided and, allowed the election petition filed by (Annexure P/1) the respondent No.1 hereini in respect of election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Biloree, without framing the issues and recording evidence of witnesses. ’ 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submit that no issues were framed nor any witnesses have been examined by the Election Tribunal before deciding the election petition, finally and the statutory procedural requirement has not been complied with. 4. This Court in Parvatia V. Padmini & Others7 and Shyam Ratan v. & Othersz held that no election petition can be decided Siyaram without framing issues. '5. Again this Oourt in Balaram Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others3 after considering various provisions held as under: “9. In the case on hand, there is a material denial 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 passed by the election tribunal, it appears to have been passed without complying with the substantial procedure as provided under the provisions of law". Aru n 6. In view of foregoing, the impugned order dated 29-10-2010 (Annexure Pl1) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Eiection Tribunal to restore in its original file and decide the case, in accordance with law. 7. ln the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. It is expected that the election petition may be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 8d]— Satish K. Agnihmfi Judge \e. y 3 W,P.(C) No.3573 of 2010 (decided on 31-08—2010)