II IjB' .u, ins- w IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. fu/A 227) N0. ^\^\ /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENT N0.1 RESPONDENTS ^/^\ 0 /itT/ / •^Y/^' / ^w "-2S/ //7 ^/y ^APAHNA MALVI)(A- ^ y^-' ^Sh@§ Bharat, S/o. Dharam Kashyap, aged about 50 years, R/o. Kinan Salkhan, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS 1] Tularam, S/o. late Jeevrakhanlal Sahu, aged about 36 years, R/o. Salkhan, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ....(Election Petitioner) 2] Amaranth, aged about 26 years, S/o. late Kholbahra Kashyap 3] Ganpat, aged about 60 years, S/o. late Budal Kashyap 4] Jawaharlal, aged about 40 years, S/o. late Neelkanth Kenwat 5] Dilip, aged about 50 years, S/o. late Ramswaroop Kashyap 6] Chandrahas, aged about 26 years, S/o. Ramanand Kashyap 7] Dulaurin Bai Kashyap, aged about 28 years, W/o. Kartikram, 8] Pili Bai, aged about 32 years, W/o. Kaushal Prasad Kashyap 9] Panchram Karsh, aged about 50 years, S/o. late Jhaduram, 10] Bharatlal, aged about 50 years, S/o. late Ramadhar Kashyap, 11] Mahettarlal, aged about 45 years, S/o. Suklal Kashyap, 12] Mansaram, aged about 37 years, S/o. late Samarulal Sahis 13] Ramkrishna, aged about 40 years, S/o. late Radheshyam Kashyap, •,0 ^.1. 14] Ramnath, aged about 58 years, S/o. late Babulal Bhardwaj 15] Ramphal, aged about 37 years, S/o. late Darasram Bhardwaj 16] Lakhanlal, aged about 58 years, S/o. Chhabilal Kashyap 17] Laxman Prasad, aged about 45 years, S/o. late Anokhelal Kashyap l8] Laxmi Prasad, aged about 47 years, S/o. late Jojelal Kashyap 19] Shankarlal Bhardwaj, aged about 25 years, S/o. Angadlal 20] Suresh, aged about 42 years, S/o. late Kanhaiyalal Yadav 21] Sanju Kashyap, aged about 26 years, S/o. Dr. Umendram Kashyap, 22] Devi Prasad, aged about 40 years, S/o. Kumar Prasad Pandey, 23] Varun Pandey, aged about 30 years, S/o. late Kedar Pandey, Respondent no. 2 to 23 are R/o. Kinan Salkhan, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 24] V.K. Lakda, Tahsildar Nawagarh, Returning Officer, Nawagarh, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 25] R.S. Patel, Specified Officer, Voting Pole N0.234, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Bargaon, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 26] N.K. Khare, Presiding Officer, Voting Pole No. 230 years, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Gramin Krishi Vikas Adhikari, Kodabhath, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa -^^ .^ 27] S.D. Panariya, Project Officer, Voting Pole No. 231, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Sub-Engineer, Aayakat, Sub-Division 5, Akaltara, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 28] D.C. Sahu, Presiding Officer, Voting Pole No. 232, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Bundela, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 29] Ganeshram Patle, Presiding Officer, Voting Pole N0.233, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Upper Division Teacher, Middle School, Pachri, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 30] V.P. Verma, Presiding Officer, Voting Pole N0.235, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Sub-Engineer, Hasdev Aayakat, Sub-Division No.5, Akaltara, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 31] Samelal Sahu, Presiding Officer, Voting Pole N0.236, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Sabariya Dera Chorbhatthi, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 32] Govindram Kashyap, Presiding Officer, Voting Pole N0.237, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Upper Division Teacher, Middle School, Pakariya (Jhulan), Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 33] H.L. Aditya, Presiding Officer, Voting Pole N0.238, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Upper Division Teacher, Chandipara, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 34] Mannulal. Karsh, Presiding Officer, Voting Pole N0.239, Gram Panchayat Salkhan, Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Higher Secondary .1. School, Kirari, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 35] The S.D.O. (Revenue) (Specified Officer, Tahsil Navagarh, Distt. Jnajgir - Chanpa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 5»*lk*®*SI!K HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRLT PETITIQN (227) N0.2144 OF 2010 PETITIONER/ RESPONDENTN0.1 RESPONDENTS Bharat Versus Tularam & Others (Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Manoj Paranjape, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Mrigendra Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri A. Kardekar, Advocate forthe respondent No.25. Shri Ashok Patil, Advocate for the respondents No.27 & 30. Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents No.28, 29, 32, 33 & 34. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 30th day ofJune,2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 26-4-2010 (Annexure - P/1) whereby the appellate authority directed the Returning Officer (Panchayat), Janpad Panchayat, Navagarh and Assistant Returning Officer, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Navagarh, to recount the votes polled in the election held on 28-1-2010. During pendency of the present petition, the election petition itself was finally decided, therefore, by filing application (I.A.No.3) for amendment, the petitioner also challenges the order dated 30-4-2010 (Annexure - P/7) whereby the election petition has been decided in favourofthe respondent No.1 herein. 2. The sole ground to question the legality and validity of the jmpugned orders is that without following the statutory provisions as enshrined underRule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short "the Rules, 1995") the election petition has been decided quashing the result of election. 3— Shri Paranjape, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on decisions of this Court rendered in Parvatia v. Padmini & Others \ ' 2005 (2) CGLJ 335 ^t£w'iws^u'"3SVSg9?syw "'• ^s^"' ;^:^'?^: ^-s^, 6. 7. Gowri and Shyam Ratan v. Siyaram & Others in support of his submission that no election petition can be decided without framing issues and examining the witnesses produced by the parties. Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, fairly submits that the impugned order suffers from deficiency and infirmity on account of the above stated reasons. Thus, the impugned orders may be quashed and further the matter may be remitted back to the election tribunal for deciding the same in accordance with law after framing issues and examining witnesses properly. Learned counsel further submits that stipulated time may be fixed for decision of the election petition in view of the fact that there has been a delay on account of the impugned decision, which could not sustain in the eye of law. Having regard to the facts situation of the case and considering the submissions made hereinabove, as the principle of law is well settled that no election petition can be decided finally without framing proper issues and examining witnesses, if produced by the parties, the impugned orders are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to restore in its original file and decide the case in accordance with the provisions of Rules, 1995. In view of the foregoing, it is expedient and proper to direct the election.tribunal to consider and decide the case, in accordance with law and on itsown merits, as eariy as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Certified copy as per rules. - -—— —-—— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge rr