-s ^1^ YVQ i^- IN THE fflGH COLTRT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASpUR CHHATHSGARH W.P.(Q N0. PETITIONER : ^ Pareva Bai, Aged about 22 years, RESPONDENT N0.1 D/o. Mayarain, W/o. Krishna Ram, R/o. Village Bhitthikala, Wai-d No. 11, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) RESPONDENTS . ,.->>^ ^^y/ ,f^/ ^' ^^y ^y /^'' ^z> ^-/ ^0^ <s^ ^ ^y' w ^ / & 1] State ofChhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Panchayat Social Welfare, D.K.S. Raipm' District Raipur (CG) Nanki Bai W/o. Putal Ram, Aged about 35 years, Ri'o. Village Bhitfhikala, Ward No. 15 P.S. & Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) (Respondent/Election petitioner) ^3] Krishna Bai W/o. Tiwari, Aged about 28 years, R/o. Village Bhitthikala, Ward No.l, P.S. & TahsU Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) ^4] Jugmmuya W/o. Ramlal, Aged about 24 yeans, R/o. Village Bhitthikala, Ward No. 17 P.S. & Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) / 5] Majhino Bai W/o. Rameshar, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Village Bhitthikala, Ward No. 10 P.S. & Tah. Ambikapur, District Suiguja (CG) y6] Retuming Officer, Gram Panchayat, Bhitthikala, Tahsil Amb&apur, District Surguja (CG) /7] Presiding Officer, Voting Booth No. 89, VUlage Bhitthikala, Ward No. 1 to 7, Tah. Ambikapur, Distt Surguja (CG) liirt" --i—-f»»»» 8J Prcsiding OfEcer, Votuig Booth No. 90, Village Bhitthikala, WardNo. 8 to 14, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja(CG) Presiding Officer, Voting Booth No. 91, Village Bhitthikala, Ward No. 15 to 20, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) Respondent No.3 to 9 (Respondents/Respondents) Collector, Surguja, Distt Surguja (CG) / 11 ] S.D.O. (Revenue)/'Specified Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 QF THE r'r»•NSTITUTION OF INDIA Xl-HC-78 *n*ICTT SllHT^l 3:sr •^ll'illi'l'y, yrfl.'y'is, Ridi*iy ..w...^W^.. 4^^p' W[ 200 aniRTiraw (y»(^qi^T) c{ sn^T^TR-fi* awsn^Tsh^i* BTOTW 8f?cf 3TI^?T ^rafa^r wicft'ff te^)-rf^reCTT ^3Tf^tT3:II^T p^tit Ctxse 31.8.2006 Mr. Mcnoj Paranjpe, Advocct^ Mr. N.K. Agarwai, Dy. Adv. advance copy. Mr. Prween Das, Advocate ftji Heard iearned counsel for thj The motter is being disposed short question is invoived in this pet By this writ petition, the order-dated 4.8.2006 (Annsxure Pl^ C>ivisional Officer, Ambikapur) in election of t.he petitiohsr herein to| Bhitthikala has been declared nuli fiied by r'espondent No.2 herein. Leorned counsel for the petil not cfforded reasonable opportunl respondsnt No.2 herein was givsn evidence, which is evident from the Nanki Bai herself was recorded on two wltnesses was recorded on 18.4.t for evidence of the petitioner here^ the counsel for th®petitioner her^ stotion due to his iiiness, the evidencje On the other hand, learned c< for the petitioner. ^eneral for rsspondent No.l, 10 & 11 on respondent No.2 on caveat. parties, ^f at the odniission s+age itseif, as very Ition. titioner has challenged the validity of ') psssed by the Specified Officer (Sub No.l7/A/89/2004-05 «vhereby the the post of Sar-panch, St-am Psnchayat void by ailowing the eiection petition ft ll4 |oner submitted that the petitioner was |ty to adduce her evidence, whereas, sufficient opportunity to adduce her ^act that evidence of r'espondent No.2- t.7.2005, whereas, the evidence of her g006, thereafter the matter wss fixed jn on 23.5.2006 and on that date, since sin wos not present, as hs was out of je of the petitioner herein was closed. lunsel for respondent No.2 arqued that Rulo 12 of ti'xi. Pand'iuyat^ (Cl^ iuii Pati'iiuiiia, Cun •upl Prut.lJ&tii^^ji^i XI-HC-78 '3^ -^WW^, »t0tfi|6,RKII+I^ *ll+lMl sti+llth ^; 200 aniOTTg^ (l?t3g^T) 3ii^?T^rR-fi<<) (TSTT 3TI^fT 9b^iEch STaTWHfsg'sn^r 2-t «hi<iTci<l1-<t<i4MTfftofl'<Ri«i< ^SI^ItTSn^T Disquoiification for Membership) em'isages that 'it shall be the witnesses on the date fixed for an adjournmeni' for non-attendance\ even the petitioner herein fa!!ed tc| her evidence i.e. on 23.5.2006. perfectand legal. Havin9 heard lear'ned couns^ record. Perusal ofrecord showsthatl was recorded on 14.7.2005 and witnesses was reeorded on 18.4.; given more than one opportunity to petitioner herein oniy on the very has been mentioned in the order the petitioner herein has not adduc4d is closed. The petitioner's csse is present, as he was out of station the order sheet that the petition| Officer that she can adduce her evit has not been recordsd that she is ndt it cannot be said that learned Speci^ to the petitioner herein to adduce h^i |Ru!es, 1995 (for short 'Ruies, 1995') ^iuty o-f the parties to produce fheir evfflence, and they shall not be sniitled to \of their witnesses', in the present case, examine herself on the date fixed for Theifefore, the order of Specified Officer- is i^i for the parties, I have perused the the evidence of respondent No.2 herein tthereafter the evidence of her two >. Accordingly, respondent No.2 was ladduce her evidence and in the case of date the evidence was ciosed and it sh^et that both the parties were present, her evidence, therefore, her evidence 2406. thdt anb ndt on 23.5.2006 her advocate wos not moreover, it has not been recorded in ^r herein was asksd by the Specified ^ence by engaging cnother counsel or it ready to give her evidence. Therefore, fied Officer- gave sufficient opportunity tr evidence. P.T.O. XP-HC-78 3^ "ill^lWM, (STfl'M'IS, [qdiuy s *TW^fT SR*fT"»l ^ 200 311^1 4aqi (li<:l'dcl^'sr) sn^rwfeTg; crarw^Tsbtii* TOITW dfer snsST •y ^rafCTifrT WRTt'ff fec^ rfSreZTC ^3Tf^T3IT^T Hule As -fcv as the provisions of is true that r-ule provides that it si^ajj their witnesses on the date fixeld entitled to an adjournment for non^ does not mean thateven in a case o1 not be granted. In ordsr to inter'pr'et Rule| examine whether the Specifiec) adjournments to the parties even there. In the matter of Raza Municipal Board, Rampur" reportecf Bench of Hon ble Apex Court he.'d "the ifuestion whether' a 12 of the Rules, 1995 is concerned, it be the duty of the parties to producs for" evidence, and they shali not be attendonce of their witnesses. but thot reasonable cause the cdjournment shal! dfter directory cannof be resotveS/by laying woutd depend upoia the fact^ object of fhe stafute in /noAf factof. The purpose for whi\ twture, fhe intention of the\ serious generat inconvenienc\ whether the provision is feii^one way t ihe par+icular provision -to subject and other cawderdfh fiarticulca- case including th^ be taken into account in d particulat'provision is. 12 of RuSss, 1995, it is nscessary +o Officer is not entjtled to grant the sufficient & reasonabie cause is ^uland 5ugar" Co. Ltd., Rompur Vs. The in AIR 196S SC 895 the Constitution t'hat; ^articulw prowsion is mandatory or down any general rule and it ofeach case and for that purpose the fjtig ouf the provision is the defermining <5fh the provision has been made and its ^egistcrture in making the provision. fhe orinjustice to persons resulting fr'om •^one way or the other, the relations of \thef firovisions dealing with the soirie ^iffns whi'ch may orise on the facts ofa language of the provision, have all to ^rriving at the conclusion whether a or directory". 's feii^one way 01 wands^ory P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3:5T?!TFTRW, «T(1y'ie,Rti'ii'Hy *TTH(tl Sh*<l<sh ^ 200 3TI^T ira^? (yiI^d^iT) 3ii^r?iTR-fi+ tWT3t1^T*t<i+ ?RnWHf^(T3TI^T -^ <t>i<iFfi'in-i iiHciT ft tec^f <Riwi< ^sif^iTsn^T procepure In tha matter of Sangranr! S| reported in .4IR 1958 SC 425 the "Considering the provisions the suits, it was opined that; 'Now d code of It is procedure, sonfi justice and •further for punishment and ^ trip people up. Too te|i that ieaves no roont inter-tsretation shoutd (provided ald'ays tha^ Isst the very means justice be used to fri^ There must be ever pi our iaws of procedur^ natural Justics which condemned unheard, reached behind theirl affect thei!- livesond their absence and tha) from pgrticipating in exceptions and wher-e] must be given effect jngh V. Eiection Tribunal Kotah & Anr. (fion b!e Apex Court he!d that; ^f the Code daaling with the triat of must be re9arded as such. onfething designated to facilitate l's ends; not a Penal eniictnient incities; not a thing designed to fchnical construction of sections for reasonable elasticity of therefore be 9uarded 0901031 justice is done tp bot.h sides) esigned for the furtherance of Istrcte it. I'esent to the mind the fact that are grounded on a principle of ^squir'es that men shouid not be Ithat decisions should not be backs, that proceedings thot property should not continue in they shouid not be precluded Ifiem. Of course, there must bs they are ciearly defined they |'o. But taken by and laroe, cnd rtt- subjcst ^e tiiat jsr'ovi.si;, oui1 iuw^ uf prut.tidui G SiiOU P.T.O. XI-HC-78 T5? •<<WICl<l, »Tfl^'16,Rldlti^<. %) *Trq<tT Sf>*ll<?b ^200 STI^Tyach ('i,c»I^GlS]ST) an^Twf^iR; (PITSn^Tsbfiti ?T(TTWStf?;cr 3TI^T -^ qiititci<fl-< ii*ii-iTffte^t<Ri«i< ^srf^iTsn^T be construed, where^ the lightofthat prin^ Again in thematter of Ste|te reported in 1970 (2) SCR 875 the| "Procedure has been descrfced mistress of law, intendsd to| of justice and not to go"/er1f procedure, this ru!e dem<i|ids promote this cause." 'er that is reasonably possible, in ;ip!e." of Siyarat V. Ramprakash P. Puri Hon bie Apex Cour-t has held that; to be a hand-maid and not a sub-serve and facilitate the cause or obstruct it. Like al! rules of a construction which would It is useful to quote the oft^ (4) AC 504: " Procedure is but ths fflc^ channei and means whsreb^ reached. It strongly depar^ facilitating, it is permitted iegai ri9hts, and is thus mad ssrve." It is oiso useful to reprodu< iaiwant Singh Bhogwansingh Vs. F Ua 1969 Pufjob S. Haryana 197; " Promptitude snd dispatch desirsble thing but not ct procedure ore nothing but ^quoted passage of Lord Penzance in1879 |:hinery of the law after all the )' iaw is administered and justice |s from its office when in place of to obstruct and even extin9uish l^ to govern which it ou9ht to sub- )e the possage ofjudgment in the csse of firm Raj Singh Baldev Kishen reported in |in the dispensation of justice is a ^he cost of Justics. All rules of ^andniaids of justice. They cannot P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3:£T^TF)T?ra', 81x0*)'!®,(s|<rtiy^< *<IH(^1 Sh<4|ch WT 200 3TT^5T qgq? (^di^sl^liT) ?n^?r ?ir f^iw cTSJT 3ffT^T ^irNi ??<TTW CTf^tT 311^1 •u~ wiWt^ WRft'ff te^t ^TRTC ^;3rf^n'3i^r iwhich be construed in a rnanner, general rutes, evidence shoujd opportunity should always evidence if the justice of th< if the originsl on'.issionto 91' fee arises from negiigence o^ would hamper justice. As a |d never bs shut out. The fu!lsst (?e given to the parties to give case requires it. It is immoteria! \e evidence or to deposit process carelessness." In the mattsr of Topjjne Sh< in (2002) 6 SCC 33 the question -fo\ Court was that whether the State could grant time to ths responden^ days in view of Section 123(2) of th| Hon'bie Apex Court heid that: "..the intention to provide made to expedite the he^: unnecessary adjourni*nent4 conssquences had been the prescribed time. The' p| It was obssrved that t!+ procedure to achieve the ^es Ltd., V. Corpo-at'on Bank reported •i\~ consideration before the Hon b!e Ap£X (Jonsumer' t5isputes Redrsssa! Commission to fiie repiy beyond totcl period of 45 i^ Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the •ime frsme to fiie repty is realiy |rin9 of such matters and avoid It w/as nsticed that no penai pre^i.ribed if the repiy is not fiied in •ovision was held to be dir-ectory. ti^e provision is more by wcy of ibject of speedy disposai of the case.' Ths Hon'bls Apsx Court i Assoeiation, Tamii Nadu Vs. Unii 3827 whiie interpreting the provi: the matter of Saism <*.dvscate Ber i|»n of India reported in 2005 AIR SCW iona of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3 T "ill^lcl'4, ffTnu'Ko, Rl'iwy *11HCTI SbKlch ^[ 200 sf^r <ra?R' (^ctf^ci^) 3n^?rgiTR-)i* traran^TaHrisfi BTcrrwHfitTsn^r _1 °bi<il7i<)1-f ><i'<r]Tfftec^t'<Ri<^i< ^3T1^IT3TI^T which prescribes maximurn 90 day^ by the defendant, he!d that; "We have to ascertain thel served by this provision and| is enacted. The use of wor4 mondatory nature of The contsxt in which it is used or| the le9islation, the same cai^ rule in (juestion has to advan defect it. The rules of pro| cause of justice and not to d) or procedure, which promote) has to be prefer'red. The ru justice and not its mistress.' period for filing the written statement object which is required to be its desiqn and context in which it 'shali' i's ordinarily indicative of pr|ovision but having regard to the having rsgard to the intention of be construed as directory. The :e the cause ofjustice and not to :edure are mode to advance the sfeat it. Constr-uction of the r-uie justiceand prevents miscar'riage |es or procedure are hand-maid of In light of the above prin| enacted to facilitate the justice 4' construction of the provisions that of interpretation should therefore justice is done to both sides) !< furtherance of justice be used to f^ pr'incipte of natur'aijustice and furt^ to advance cause ofjustice and not procedure which prorootes justice| preferred. !^iple of iaw that procsdurai !aws are Ind further its ends and too technical leaves no room for reasonable elasticity !fe guarded 09ainst (provided aiways that jst the very meons designed for the ^ustr-ate it; procedure cre groundsd on a er that the rules of procedurs are made [to defeat it and construction of ruie or snd prevents miscarrio9e has to be P.T.O. XI-HC-78 TST^TORTO, WTn'H'IS, [sli-11'My tfTKmaioich ?TT 200 3Tt^?[^a<»)(yl^q^tf) w^rwR-ii* cT8IT3)T^Tshyi<o reiTWBfBcf-an^T -s. 'tii^ifa'ifl-i 4ititiTfftet^<Rt'«i< ^;3Tl^T3TI^?r \'' adjourr^ment Rule 12 of the Rules, 199?, witnesses by the parties, has beer^ the hearing of election petitions aniji the election petition requires expeifi allowed to take ursnecessary wiit be that in cases where suffici) Speclfied Officer should give edj adjournments to be gr'anted by S[ sufficient cause exists for the required to ensure that unnecessar^ of the eiection petition shouid not b[ Looking to the.fccts of th^ Offtcer to assess the situation and sufflcient & reasonable cause 'is no[ evidence, in that case, normaliy, the the matter, whereas, in the presertt tl'hen the petitioner' herein herseif was not present, her evidence opportunity to examine herself or sngoge another counsel for adducinit been recorded in the order sheet evidsnce has not beenadduced by closed, wherecs, respondent No.2 to adduce her evidence. i, which deals with the production of enacted with the intention to expedite to woid unnecessary adjournments, as itious heQring and parties should not be •r^ments. The true construction of Rule 12 int and reasonoble couse is there, the journment. Ru!e 12 does not prohibit lecified Officer" where reasonable and cjdjour-nment. The Specified Officer is adjournments to delay the proceedings 9ranted. case, it is the duty of the Specified |f he found that the party on account of io|t able to assist the Court for adducin9 Specified Offjcer is required to odjourn oniy on the first date i.e. 23.5.2006, |sss present in Court, but her advocste abruptly closed without 9ivin9 her she was not asked that if she wants her evidence, the only thing which has |s that the par-ties are present and as f'he petitioner herein, her evidence was h^s been given more than one opportunit/ P.T.O. wts XI-HC-78 3^ '^WW-t^, W^\»' ,fc|fllti^< *11*1WI shHlch ^ 200 3TT^?T iraq? ('{cli^af^liT) 3D^T?iTR.lich (Wsn^Tsbiro \- ^^ ^- ??<TTW HfN W^T _<5 matttr oibd In the circumstances, I am < inspugned suffsrs from pervsrsity, matter' deser'ves to be femcnded Accordingly, the petition of dated 4.8.2006 (Annexure P-12) i| remanded back to the Specified Of-\ with a diraction to dacide the petitioner to adduce her evidence to r'eraain present before the Spe^ petitioner hsreiii to kesp at! her ii\ SDecified Officer to examine all tt| herein and decide the matter afr^ both the parties. In view of above or'der', AA.I stand disposed of. Cer'tified copy os per rules. «hi<if<i<fl-< iii<-]TfflW^<Ri+<i< ^Stf^TSD^T ijif the considered opinion that the order 1'hs same is licble to bs set asids snd ths bc|ck. ^he petitioner is allowed, impugned order i|s hereby set aside and the matter is :icer (Sub Divisionat Officer, Ambikapur) afrssh after giving opportunity to the for thst purpose, parties are direeted (ified Offlcer on 4th October 2006. The (fitnesses present on that date and the ^e witnesses produced by the petitioner |sh in accordance wit lcmi efter hearing ..(W.5P. No.3529/06 and I.A. No.8181/06 Sd/- L.C.Bhado< Judge P.T.O.