HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK,CJ. WRiT PETITSON N0.1529 OF 2006 Narayan Prasad Kumbhkar, agecl about 32 year, S/o Ganesh Ram Kumbhkar, R/o Viiiage Panthora, Via Hardi Bazar Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Vs. 1. The State of Chhattisgarh through its Secrstaiy, Agriculture Department, Raipur 2. The Coitector and District Etection Officer (Mandi), Distt. Janjgir Champa 3. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, through its Secretary, Nai!a, Janjgir (C.G.) 4. Bishunia! Kashyap, aged about 55 years, S/o Shri Kedar Kashyap, R/o Viltage Pendri Tahsii and DisB. Janjgir Champa 5. Sub Divisfonal Officer (Revenue) (Presiding Orficer) Janjgir 6. Director, C.G. Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board, Bilaspur Mr. Parag Kotecha, iearned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay S. Agrawai, tearned counsel forthe State. !Wr. V.K. Pandey, iearned counset for respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4°'Apri!, 2006) In an election held on 02/03/2006, the petitioner was eiected as Vice Chairman ofthe Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Naila, Janjgir defeating the fourth respondent who contested for that post. The fourth respondent being aggrieved by his defeat, it appears, raised a dispute before th® second respondent. The second respondent without authority of taw entertained the dtepute and by the impugned order dated 20/03/2006 has set aside the etection of the petitioner as Vice Chairman of Krishi Upaj Mandi SamiSi, Naila, Janjgir. In the cireumstance, this writ petition is filed. •a.- The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 66-A ofthe Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, the competent authority to entertain the election dispute is the State Government and not the second respondent. The contention of the learned counse! for the petitioner is weii-founded and not cfisputed by the learned counsel for respondent. On that short ground, the impugned order of the second respondent should be treated as a nullHy inthe eye of law. Accordingly, the writ petition is ailowed. The impugned order is quashed. No costs. | ChiefJustice Cw»y^