HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRi DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ WritApfieaiNo.280_ot2010 ADoetlant Versus •9 Smt. Martha Kujur W/o Siril aged about 65 years, by Caste - Uraon R/o Village Bhalumunda, Tahsil Farsabahar, Distt. Jashour (CG) Smt. Ambika Bai W/o Laiit Aged about 27 vears, by caste - Bhuiya, R/o Vi!!age Korangsma!, Tahsil Farsabahar, Disti. Jashpur (CG) Sri H.C. Nag, Eiection Officer (Panchayat) Tahsi! Farsabahar, Distt. Jashpur (CG) Sub Divisionai Officer (Revenue)/Prescribed Officer (Panchayat) Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (CG) Present: Shri Arun Shukia, counsei for the appeilant. 9th August 2010) ,J Respondent No.1 was eiected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Korangamat. The appetlant herein fiied an eiection petition against her election on the ground that she does not belona to scheduied tribe category, for which the post of Sarpanch was reserved. The Etection Tribunal decided the election petrtion wlthout framing issues and without aftording an opportunity of hearing to the parties by its order dated 27.7.2010, fited as Annexure P/1 with the writ petition, and held that respondent No.1 does not belong to scheduled tribe category as caste ^rr or '^ is not included in the list of scheduled tribe as notified and accordingly, declared her eiection void. The writ petitron filed by respondent No.1 has been ailowed after recording submission of learned counsei for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State that no eiection petition can be decided without frammg issues and examinmg witnesses produced by the parties, and the order of the Tribuna! (Annexure P/1) has been quashed and the matter has been remitted back to the Tribunat with a direction to restore in its original file and decide the case in accordance with -law on its own merits as earlv as possible, preferabty within a period ofthree months frorn the date of receipt of copy of the order. ^<tf"--^ ,:^1 .;.•''•: ''-^, ?J ^^ >hri Shukla, iearned counsel for the aDpellant, would araue that in view 6f the admission of respondent No.1 in her reply (Annexure P/3) that she beiongs to caste ^rr, no triable issue remains before the S'ribunai as the above caste is not inctuded in the list of scheduied tribe notified as per provisions of the Constitution. Heard learned counsel for the appeiiant. Perused the impugned which has been passed after recording submission of iearned counset for the parties to the proceedings that the order impugned suffers from and infirmity for the reasons that the eiection petition has been without framing issues and examining the witnesses produced by the parties, which is not permissible. After considerina the above fact as also the list of scheduled tribe notified as per provisions of the Constitution and reply to the election petition filed by respondent No.1, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in writ appeai. The appeai is without any substance, the same deserves to be and is, accordingiy, dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge K