C^ l-^^ ^ Single Etench 1N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. MlO^ OF 2011 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: \?- ^.^^Y' Y° ..•<?.•-'^J?-'" ^.4T--;\U' i/.^^/' ^w <y7 r Bhaiya Ram, S/o Bhujbal,Caste-Gond, aged about 52 years, R/o Village- Pnchayat - Syahi ,Police Station Basantpur,Tahsil- Wadrafnagar ,District Surguja C.G. VERSUS l.« State of Chhattisgarh, Through, Secretary Panchayat Department,D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). . 2. The Sub Divisional officer (R) Wadrafnagar ,District Surguja.C.G. 3/ Ramvichar S/o Late Shri Bharosha Coste -Agriya,aged about 37 years R/o Village Panchayat -Syahi ,Police Station -Basantpur ,Tahsil- Wadrafnagar, District Surguja, (C.G). 4-7' Dhansai • S/o Shri Mangal,Caste- Gond,aged about 30 years R/o Village -Syahi,police Station -Basantpur , and Tahsil-Wadrafnagar, District Surguja, (C.G). 5. Returning officer polling booth No-111 and Returning officers 2,3. Through Ram Bahadur ,Head Master at Primary School Silota ,Tahsil Balrampur . District-Surguga.C.G. 6. Returning officer polling booth No-112 and Number ' 1,2,3 Assistant Returning officers. Through Jhagru Ram,Head master ,at Primary School Pratappur ,Tahsil Pratappur . District-Surguga.C.G Respondent no-5&6 (Detail of Respondent no-5 & 6 are not mention in impugned order) 9- WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'S^SSf^-y 52- ashok PETiTIONER RESPONDENTS HIGH CQURTOF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR WRrTPETITiON (Q No. 4108 OF 2011 Bhaiva Ram Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Artide 226/227 ofthe Constitution of Sndia) SingteBench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J, Present:- ShrjAX.Yadav,AdvQpateforthepeiKJoner. Shri Ajst Singh, PaneS Lawyerforthe State/respondents Nos.1 & 2 Shri A.V.Shridhar, Advocate for the r^pondent No.3. Shri Vikas Pandey, Advocate for the respondent No.4. j Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate forthe respondent No.5 & ©. ORDER (Passed on this 27ffi day of September, 2011) 1. Heard iearned counset appearing for the parties. !^ 2- SStri Yadav, Seamed counsel appearing for the petsttoner submsts that the eiection tribunat has directed for recounting of votes without framing of issues, which is contrary to well settled provisions of law, as being not fcn accordance with the provisions ofthe Chhattisgarh (Election Petittons Corrupt Practice and Disqualifgcation for Membership) Rules, 1995. 3. Shrs Singh, Searned Pane! Lawyer appearing forthe respondents No.1 & 2 submsts that there is no dispute that the election tribunal has prweeded with the electson petition not in accordance with the required substantial provisions oflaw, :" :1 4. Shri Yadav relies on a decisions of this Court rendered in Pawaffa v. PBdmini & OthefB and Shyam Ratan v. Siyat^m & Other^ m support of hte sybmission that no etectson petstion can be decided without framing tesues and examining the witn^sesproduced bythe parties. 5. Having regard to the facts situatton of the case and oonsidemg the submissions made hereinabove, as the prinGiple of law is welt settled thad no eiectson petition can be decided without framing proper issues and examining witnesses, If produced by the parties, ttse impugned order dated 20.07.2011 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to restore in its original fsle and decide the case in accordance with law. 6. In view of the foregojng, it ss expedient and proper to direot the electi©n tribunal to consider aod decide the case afresh, in acGordance with law and on its own merits, as eariy as possible. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto coste. 3 2005 (2) CGLJ 335 2 WP No.4270 of 2005 (decided on 19-11 -2008) Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge