PBGKB"" ^.ff»ne»^. ^il'^^^^j^ lil.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSQARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLB SHm JUSTICE PRI'KNKBR DIWAKER W.P. (227) N0. 3836/2008 PETITIOWBR AppUcaat Versus RESPONDEMTS NoE-appUcants 2. Baraa, S/o. Bagar Say, aged about 65 years, Occupation Cultivator, R/o. Vitiage Paudri, P.S. aad Talisil S^ District Sui-guja (CG) Jaiila Bai, W/o. Babaa, Aged about 50 years, R/o. VSSa^e Dhaneshpur, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Smyija (CG) SuMdal. S/o. Shri Bodhaa Ram. Rajwade, aged about 60 years 3. Shiv Prasad Rajwade, S/o, Qh. n >-< p i1l~>. /~n TI <- yan uovma KSOSI, agea aoout 32 years Respondent No. 2 & 3 are r/o. ViBage Paadri, P.S. and Tahsil Suraiuur, District Sureuia (CG) 4. Sub Divisional Officer (Election Tribunal) Surajpur District Surguja (CG) WRIT PBTITION UNDER A&TICLB 227 OF THB COBST!TUT!OH 0V I3SDIA AppearaBce: Shri Ashok Kumar Shiikla, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri D.N.Prajapati, counscl for respondent No.l. None appears for respondents No. 2 & 3. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhaa, Paael lawyer for the State/ respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (23.04.2009) r-" -•2-- In the election of Vitlage Paachayat Pandri, Tahsil Siu-ajpur, District Siuguja, respondent No. 1 was elected as Panch Irom Ward No. 13. This election-was challenged by the petitioner befoTe fhe Sub Divisional OfiBcer, Surajpur tfarough Election Petition on 28.02.2005. Despite of sufficicnt tiiae, the said etection petition was not decided. The petitioner had filed a writ petition before ttus Hon'ble Court which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 5429/2007 and vide order dated 7.9.2007 (Armexure P/4), ttus Court has disposcd of the writ petition granting liberly to the petitioner to move suitable appBcation for earty bearing of fhe election petition pending before the Sub Divisional Officer (EIection Tribiina.9 Surajpur. In tura, the Sub Divisional Officer was directed to decide the said election petition in accordaace with law preferabty withiu a period of three weeks fiuai the date offilmg offhe saidappBcation. The above order of this Court was aubnutted before the Sub Divislonal Officer (Election Tribimal) Surajpiu- aad vide order dated 30.04.2008, leamed Tribimal has disniissed the election petition of fhe petitioner by sayiag that fhere is no necessity for recording the cvidence as fhe the Sub Divisional OfScer had already catled for enqiiiry report offhe Halka Patwari and fhe paacluiama. Accordiag to fhe Sub Divisional Officer, Surajpur, fhese two dociuncnts were on record and there was no need for recordiag evidence and based on these reports, fhe Court below has dismissed the election petition itself. Contention ofleamed couascl for fhe petitioner is fhat as per Rule 11 & 12 of ffcte C.G. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices aad Disqiialification for Membership) Riiles, 1995, the Sub Divisional Oflttcer was under the obligation to recori the evidence aad after following the due proceduie, to decMe the election petition. It appears that on account of tbe order of fhis Court, the '3~ Sub Divisional Of&cer vras either in a huny or took ofh.erwise aud has disnussed the election petition suxniuarilv. Supportmg the order of fhe Sub Divisional OJScer, Shri D.N.Prajapati, learaed counsel for the respoadent No. 1 submits fhat the order is strictfy in accordance wifh law aad there was no need to record the evidence by fhe Sub Divteional officer because relevant material was before fhe Sub Divisional Officer (Election Tribunal) to arrivc at a conclusion. Leamed counsel for the State also supported fhe order impugned. I have heard fhe parttes at length. Rule 11 & 12 of fhe C.G. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and DisquaUfication for Meiubership) Rules, 1995 reads as under : 11. Procediue taefore the specified offflcer and his powers-(l) Subject to the provisions of these rules, eveiy election petition shatt be enquired into by the specified ofiBcer as nearly, as may be, iu accordauce with the procedure appUcable under fhe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits: Provided fhat it shaU only be necessaiy for fhe speciBed officer to make a Diem.oraiQduiu of fhe substaace of the cvidence ofaay witness exauuaed by him. (2) The speciSed ofBcer, shaU. bave the powers which are vested ra. a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, whcn tiyiag a suit in respect of the foUowuig inatters:- (a) discovery and iaspection; (b) eiiforciag the attendance of ^ .,^'^IS ^' ^i> 1 -V l^i^^'"'" ' witaesses, aad reqiiiring the deposit oftheir expenses; (c) coinpelling the productun of document; (d) examinatioa ofwitnesses on oafh; (e) reception of evidence taken on affidavit; and (fl Msuing coBuaission for examination of witnesses and suinmoning and examining suo moto aay person whose evideace, appears to him to be inaterial. 12. Parties to produce thelr iritnesses- It shall be the duty ofthe parties to produce their wituesses on fhe date fixed for evidence, aud thev shaU not be entitled to an. adjourrument for non-attendaace of their witnesses; Provided that the specified officer inay, at his discretion, order the issiie of sunmions to auy witaess on fhe necessaiy process fee and costs beiag deposited by the party concemed. Keeping ia vicw aU tbe above' provisions and the procedure as envisagea itader Rule 11 & 12 of the C.G. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rutes, 1995, the Sub Divisional Officer was under thc obl^ation to follow fhe procediire, to record fhe evidence and fhen to pass thc order. On this short ground alone, fhc petition succeeds and the order impugned dated 30.04.2008 is quashed. The inatter is reiuanded back to fhe Sub Divisional Officer, Siirajpur to tiy the election petition ia accordauce si*ss RaSi^^.^^-5? •' e^: with fhe rules, 1995 and pass appropriate ordcr ia accordauce wifh law. At fhis stage, Shri Shiilda subgtits ttoat tfae electioa petitioa was filed in the year 2005 and oiriy few nioatfas are left for the tenure ofrespondcnt No. 1 and therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer be directed to decide the electioa petition expeditiously. This prayer is not opposed by counsel for the resoondents. The Sub Dwisional Officer (Election Tribuna^ is directed to decide tfae petition expeditiously and preferabfy witbin a period of 45 days fiuin the date of receipt of fhis onler. The parties wouM toe under fhe obl^ation to sutomit fhe order of fhis Court before fhe co-inpetent aufhori.ty/S.D.0. and in tum fhe Sub Divisional OfBcerwffl act promptly to decjde the petition. Needless to state tbat tfae parties will cooperate in tfae earty disposal of tfae case. No order as to costs. ~ „-———____ A. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge Suguna