BB /^o <; IN THE HI&H OOURT OF JUUECATURE AT KILASPUR. CMMATriSSARH WRTT PETniON N0.'2-867 OF 2003 PETITIONER: Smt. Rukmani Patel, W/o Subhash .Patel, Aged about years, R/o Villo9e: Bichchiya, Block & Tehsil: Basna, District: Mahasamund (C.6,). - Versus - RESPQNDENTS: 1.. ^^^ ..^%^ ^^s^ ^'^^y^ k*' Sub bivisional Officer(Revenue) Saraipali, District; AAahasamund Chhattisgarh. Presiding Officer, R.E.O., for Elecfion of Up-Sarpanch, &ram Panchayat; Bichchiya, Block; Basno, Dist; Mnhasamund Chhottisgarh, Sonsingh Sidar, S/o Sukhiram Sidar", Aged about SOyears, R/o Bichchiya, Block & Tehsil :1 Basna, District: Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. WRTT PETniON UNOER ARTECLES 226 / 227 OF THE OONSTETUTION OFINMA XI-HC-22 'S31 •<ii<<idA|, aTn.H'is, (sicii^y 3TI^?T ^l^^l 111WI sbllth IV^ 200&- fSre^ sn^rqiT f^wan^T i.hHI+'yl^d 311^1 ^WIWBfe' +i<itcf<f)-i ii*)CTTffte^<Ri«;i< ^iSlf^T 311^1 20-7-2005 Mr. B.C>. 6uru, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Otwani, Panel]lawyerforthe State. By this writ petition ijnder Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is Brief facts leading To ^m elected Up-Sarpanch of Village: Bichchiya, Blbck & Tehsil: Basna, tiistricf: Mahasamund, has questioned the legalitc and correctnessof order dated ^0-6-2005 (Annexure P-1) pas^d by the Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenuep, Saraipali, in Pcnchayot Election Petition No.SlB/12 year 2004-08. filing of this petition, as set out in the writ petition, necessary for the di^posal are that the petitioner wos elecTed Up- Sappanch for 6ram Panchayertt Bichchiya,tmd the same was notified on 4-2- 2005. The petitioner and j'espondent No.3 submitted their nomination papers before the Presidin^ Officer to contest the election of Up- Sar'panch, 6ram Panchayat; Bi submitted by the petition.er chchiya and the said seot of Up-Sarpanch was unreserved. On the date of scputiny, two nomination papers thort' were |& respondent No.3 were put to scrutiny, and th? Presiding pfficer found 1|ha* thenominotion paper filed byrespondent No.3 is incomplete, as in cla4se 2 of the nomination puper of respondent ^ No.3, he had not markec^ against' the Scheduled Tribe category. Accordingly, the nomintrt'ion incomplete in the absence pf respondent No.3 was rejected being »f mdrking a9ainst Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was elected unopp|)sed as Up-Sarpanch, therefore, respondent :I-HC-22 35T •^WW^, WiKw'W, ('KII'My 3TT^?T qslcb *IIHCII awrai W( 200 f^% 3TI^STqiT , {•yiwan^T EhH fff?(f 3n^?T 5RTIW Hf^cT ^- *wf<'i''fl-<t<i*<c)Tfftecfl'<Ri*di< ^3Tf^tT3l1^r No.3 beingaggrieved bythe said order preferred an election petition under Section 122 (1) of the Panchay|at Rcy Adhiniyam, 1993, ond the S.&.O. (Revenue) vide the impugned or^ler allowed the petition and quashed the order of the Presiding Offi^er rejecting the nomination paper of respondent No.3. I have heard Mr. 8.0. Su^-u, learned counsel for the petitionerand AAr. Sunil Otwani, learned Pfsnsl ^awyer for the State on admission of this petition. •From perusat of the imi nominotion paper filed by the res was lacking i.e. fullnameof respj)ndent No.3with caste wasnot mentioned in the nomination paper. In Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Othe nomination paper was rejected. lugned order it reveals thof when the )ondent No.3 was put to scrutiny, the same form No.2 on the declaration portion, respondent No.3 has not mention^d as to whether he belongs to ^cheduled f Backward Cldss, and on this ground the Perusal of +he impugned order further shows thot the primary conditfon for entitlement of contesting the election ;_ of Up-Sarpanch was thdt one s^hould be an etected Panch of the Srom Panchayat, and respondent No.; Panch, therefore, they were e^ititled to contest the elect'ion of Up- Sarponch. In the nomination pap|er, respondent No.3 did not tick mark his sub-caste as to whether he belon^ Other Backward Class. Learned 3 as wetl as the petitioner were elected }sto Scheduled Caste,Scheduled Tribe or iub bivisional Officer has hekl that on this ground, the nomination paper co[;ld not have been rejected, because the XI-HC-22 sn^r^T f^lN; 317^1 aiiwflfgcT 3S?'<11<11<1<<, ©Tfltf'IG,falCIWy Sll^l Ma<h *<1*1MI shliqi""""""""""" W^ 200 Rife«d 3)1^1 g+dlWgf?cT -^' post of Up-Sarpanch W(K for the <tii<il<-i<fl-< tiii<iTffte^l'<Ri'trii< ^;3ri^T3n^r general cote9ory, it was not reseryed for SC, STprOBC. Therefore,byno|ttickmarktng againstthe said column the nomination paper could nothave b|sen rejected. Finding of learned S.&.O. is legal and correct.and there is r|o infirmity in the finding for the reason that when the post of Up-Sarpa^ch wqs not reserved for any 5C, ST or OBC, then there was no necessitil' to tick mark the caste, as the same was prescribed in the pr-oforma for fhose candidotes who are contesting the election on reserved post for apa^ticufcir co^te. The other groynd which' w|as taken for rejection of the nomination paper of respondent No.3 was thfat in the nominotion poper he mentioned only Son Singh and he did not mer^ion his surname as Son Singh Sidar which was entered in the electoral roll. that in the nominart-ion paper, r^spondent No.3 mentioned his name, his fathers name and other relevantl thot the identity of respondenl^ Merely by not menfioning 'Sidar', reject-ed. The nominotion paper candidate cannot be ascertained name mentioned in the nominatil In this respect, leamed S.D.O. o.bserved information, therefore, it cannot be said No.3 could not have been ascertained. the nomination paper could not have been can only be r-ejected when identity ofa from the electoral rbll on account of the bn paper and also on the basis of the particulars filled bythe candidat^ in the nomination poper. The S.&.O. has categorically held thcEt the n<4ne of respondent No.3 was correcfly mentioned <md other particulars p»ere also filled-in properly,and onlythe caste was not mentioned alongujiith his name. When on account of the XI-HC-22 an^r^T f?rR73n^T giifNigf?? Soma 3(;/.yft S^^TPTRCT, oTlltf'ie, torey 3ll^l i^ach ^ll*<pll sbNlcb ••••••••••••••••••••• g^ 200 )^g an^r^aRK^fN' _ ^ »i<iici<fl-iHiftiTffrs'^ <Ri«i< ^sri^iTsn^r informotion filled-in in the nomfnation paper the identity of responderrt' No.3 was ascertainable, theh by ^nerely not mentioning the caste along with his name cannot be held to be o s(ibstantial defect inthe nomination paper. At the time of rejectioh of nomination paper of respondent No.3, the Returning Officer has not writf^n that'the ncme of respondent No.3 was not tallying with the electorat ro^l or his fother's name wasnot correct, and on account of that it was no^ possible to ascertain the identity -of respondent No.3. Apart from the above, le4rned counsel forthe petitionercould not point out as to how thenominati|o»i paper was reject-ed in accordance with law. In.the resuti", I do not fii^d any substance in this writ petitjon, the same is liable to be dismissed an|d it is hereby dismissed, at the odmission stcge itself. Consequently, AA.(W.)P.No. disposed of. 2396/2005 and I.A.No.5669/2005 stand Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (-ft^y^)