HIGH‘COURT OF CHHATT‘SGRH, BILASPR A U WRIT PETITION (C ‘i NO 239 OF 2010 PETITIONER Pushplata J sh! S/o Shn J P Joshl aged about 40 years Rfo Vinage Dehamdlh Janpand Panchayat Lohara District Kablrdham (C G) Versus 1 State of Cdwhathsgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Pahchayat & Rural ‘éDeveropment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Malhtralaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya,§ Raipur (CG) Kabirdham(¢.G.) The Tahsildar, Kabirdham (CG) The Returning Ofhcer, 3 The Collector, Kabirdham, District Lohara, District (Panchayat), Nagar Panchayat, Lohara, District Kabirdham (CG) 6 Registration Officer (Panchayat), Kabirdham (C.G.) 7 Revenue Inspector, Lohara, District Kabridham (C.G.) WRIT PETiTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance Shn Saurabh Dangi Counsel for the petitioner Shn A S Kachhwaha Dy Advocate Generai forthe State/respondents No.1 to 4 ORAL oRoE (18.01.2010 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard I Petitioner Pushpiata Joshi has filed this petition under Ar of the nsu of n o fol refs RESPONDENTS . ) R ticle 226 Cotittion idia fr the lowmg eii _ WRIT PETITION (c»)‘No.2§9 OF 2010 \\ __ 10.1 " That, the Hon’bie Court may kindly be pleased to ca" th entire records pertaining to the case ‘ . ‘ _ _ 10.2 ‘- That this Hon ble Co rt may kindly be . _, I pleased to direct the State Authorities to Include the name of the petitionerln the voter list of Dehanidih Gram Panchayat. 7 10.3 That, this I-Ion’ble court nHay kindly be pleased to quashthfe impugned order ’ dated 07 01 201 o (Antiexure P/t) 10.4 Any other order as this Hon bie Court may deem fit and proper In the facts and ctrcumstanoes of the‘case may also be r i v. issued in favour of the petitioner.” The petitioner thus in substance is praying for quashment of the order dated O7 01 2010 passed by the ompetent authonty, by which the competent authority has refused to Include the name of the petitioner In the voter list already finalized for the Panohayat Elections I Learned counsel for the petlttoner submits that the ‘ election has already been notified and the date for fling omination has also elapsed » ‘ln the opinion of this Court, the election process is lready on and in such a situation; if the writ petition is entertained, the effect would be interrupting in the election process On the above prInCIple l am fortlfed by the Views taken by the Supreme Court In the matter of Electron Commission ' of India, Through $ecretam vs. Ashok Ktr‘mar and others‘ {gotta} a s c c 216 . Therefore l am not Inclined to entertain the writ petition 5at this stage E c n a Q? l 1 WRIT PETITION (C) NO.23:9 OF 2010 'The petition has no merit. The same is Iiabie to be ismied ad i hereby dismied maril. Sdl— dss n s ss sumy ;