SINGl.EaENW f^-. 4 ^^.^-^•""^ R"-NO-":":^"BS^:?1-^" PWseotcdb^gg:^,......... dated—"""";^^" ^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIIASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0.33 <S3. OF 2006 c^) PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: w Nishikant, s/o Sakal Sai, aged about 2?- years, R/o Rajpur, Tahsil Lailunga, Distt RaigaA (Chhattisgarh). Versus 4. 5. 6. Sub Divisional Offieer (Revenue), Specified OflGeer, Gharghoda, DisttRaigarh(CG). Assistant Retuming Officer/ Lailunga, Distt Raigarh (Chhattisgarii). Smt. Pala Bai @ Mda Bai, W/o Rajkumar Painkra, R/o Rqpur, Tahsil Lailunga, Distt Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). Nabil Sai, S/o Ramdhan Kanwar, Injore Sai, S/o Somsay Kanwar Ramdhan, S/o Nan Budha Kanwar Mathura Bai, W/o Dui^a Prasad 8. Jugni Bai, W/o Janmajay 9. Hariram, W/o Matwar Kanwm' All are R/o Rajpur, Tahsil Lailunga, Kstt Raigarii (Chhattisgarh). WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226^227 OF TBE CONSTrTUTIONOFINDIA s —.—^—- *II+<CT sfri-ncs S^'KIFIRTO', axn'y'KS, fS|cliyy,<, Triw ••^fns-o-:3. WT 200 C 3T(^?T4a«> (i{c)i^c((^!ST) an^T^iTRi^Tq; wrsTTOrgiHra; SRITSK trf?(i sn^r ^rafeft^ wrcfr'^'te^-ri^TRTC ^ari^crsn^T 11.8.2006:. Shri B.D. Guru, counsel for th Shri N.K. Agrawal, Deputy e petitioner. Advocate General for the respondent No.1, on advance copy. The petitioner, who is an efected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rajpur, has preferred this writ p^tition under Arttele 226/227 of the ConsUtution of India, being aggri^veci by the order dated 26-6-2006 whereby the tearned Specified Offic^r has rejected the objection raised by the petitioner that an attested tm^ compliance of sub-rule (2) of Rul] (Election Petitions, Corrupt P< Membership) Rutes, 1995 (for short | Brief facts leading to filing of] copy was not served upon him in ? 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats actices and Disqualification For theRules,1995). this writ petition are that the petitioner among other candidates contested t|ie eiection for the post of Sarpanch in the year 2WS. In the said electiot), the pet'rtioner was deciared elected tiot), having secured the majority of vot^s. Being aggrieved with tte result, respondent No.3 herein filed an ^lsction petition before the Specified Officer, Gharghoda, District Raigart^ the petitioner, amongst other object| the petition served upon .him was i| Rute 3 of the Rules, 1995. Ho\i| In reply of the said election petition, ons, raised the objection that copy of ict in accordance with sub-rule (2) of fever, learned Specified Officer after hearing both the parties and petusal of the copies reached to the conclusion that the copyserved upt>n the petitioner is in accordanc®with the aforesaid rules and rejected, am^ngst other objections, this objection. But, iearned counsel for the petitioner pressed only one point that the copy which was served upon th^ petitioner was not in accordance with the Rules. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3^''<<i<iici<), axny'Ko, (cjdltiy KI^TCTT iawi^ W]' 3TI^?T4;iq> (ltcltd°t^,'iT) sn^r^iTR-ii* (IW 3TR?T 3iTfR7 < Ban/e \ •^:^) ?TCTTWHf?!T3n^T nfay Having heard learned couns^l the record, the writ petition is the etection petition the petitioner service of attested copy as per sub|- and the learned Specifled OfRcer this issue alongwith other issues thejudgment. «,, Consequently, M.(W.)P. Nc|. also stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for certffied for the parties and having perused dispo|sed of with a direction that in reply of raise ttie objecUon regarding non- 1-rule (2) of Rule 3 ofthe Rutes, 1995 framing issue on this point, decide after after »bl«Fi1<fl-1^iwii ff fS^S ^srf^iTgn^r recording evidence ofthe partiesin .3099/2006 and I.A. No.7491/20)6 copyofthisorder. Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge P.T.O.