//1// C.R.No.^'S' /2010 '7^''U^- iSBtcas APPLICANT RgSPQNDENT PEALLANT igpure S/o Shri H. R. Nagpure, aged about 37 years, R/o ShankarNagar,WardNo. 37, . Teh. & Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) .•ff'»B(r~ii^6.fryta^-a»y(K(.t46gg VERSUS P^.^ ^ sh« 44../^(^ •!-'^-.......s.&.^.:./^... •'RifatNehal S/o Late Taksir Nehal R/o ShankarNaear, WardNo. 37, &"-1? Teh. & Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mjshra C.R. No.55/2010 Applicant Respondent Non-applicant Appellant Renuka Prasad Nagpure Versus Rifat Nehal Revision under Section 441 F(2l of C.G. Municjpa! CorDoration Act. 1956 Present: Shri S.P. Kale with Shri Sanjeev Pandey, counset for the applicant. Shri Devendra Pratap Singh, counsel for the non- applicant. Oral Order (12.07.2010) Learnedcounsel for the applicant submits that the election petition preferred by the non-applicant suffers from the defect of substantial nature, in as much as the election petition has been filed even before the election was notified in the official gazette and that security deposit of Rs.250/- was not paid in the Government treasury at the time of presentation of this election petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant submits that he has not moved any election petition against the applicant. His applic&tion before the District Judge is under Section 392 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (henceforth the 'Act') challenging the rejection of her nomination at the time of election. 3. Learned counsel for the non-applicant also submits that he has not called in question the election of the applicant as ^Councillor ofWard Np.37, Shankar NagarWard, Bilaspur. ^ss''""-^ ^"~^.^-, .^^"*?%\ ^%,, 1 "^^S^-1'^] ^z- 4. In view of the submission made by the non-applicant and on perusal of the application moved under the Act, a copy of which has been shown before this Court by learned counsel for the applicant, this Court is satisfied that there is no prayer in the application for setting aside the election of the applicant as Councillor ofWard No.37. 5. In view of this and particularly in view of the fact that the application moved by the non-applicant is not an election petition, the objection regarding maintainability may not arise for determination. 6. With the above observation, the instant revision stands disposed of. ——— Sd./- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Priya r