z HIGHOURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR w.P.(C) No‘.253 of 201 0 ‘i 1‘ 9 ‘ \ i i 7 PETITIONER Vijay Verma, AgetL about 34 ,years, 'S/o Shri Arjun \Terma, Parsad — Ward No.13; 'Jhulelal ward: Chakarbhata r (:Jamp, NaQar' Panchayat -Bodri, Tah. Bilha, District 'BilaspUr'(CG) ' ‘ ‘ V ' Ver§us l_ ' State of Chh‘attisgafrh; Through the Secre§ary, Department of,Loc$l‘ Self, Dau Kalyan $ingh Mantralaya,‘ RaipurkCG): NagarPanchVayat -—§ BoVdr‘iv, through — its Chi'ef MuniCi’pél Officer, Bodri, Chakrabhata, ‘Ta‘h? Bilvha‘; District Bilaspur.(CG) , > £ y ' , I _ ahsildarLCum-Preécribed Authority, or’the‘IelectiOn’of' Nagar Panchayat T - Boqri Bilha; Distri¢t Bilas‘pur(CG) ColIeCtor, District Bilaspur(CG) The District Election Omcer, District Bilaspur(CG)' ‘ ESIéONDENTs ' 1 Bhawan, _ WR éETITION UNDER ARTICLE‘226/227 oi: THE CONSTITUTION , >, ,. »_0FAINDIA» t _t Agpear‘a‘hce‘: ‘ i Si‘iri 'Prashant Ja’isyi/ai, Senior Advocate'With Shri Shiri Shailendra’ Sharma, COUnseifor the petitioner. respondents No.’1 & 4’on advance 'copy. ‘ , Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate ’for the State/ ‘ r r - * 4 7*oRDER'*/ a: (19.01.2010) NIL «KfUMARs‘INH'A, J; Heard on admission. I , Petitioner: 7Vija'y Verma, has filed VthlsKpetition forthe follOWing reliefs: r , ‘ L V “1:,0.1 That theHon’ble Cou’rt beplease‘déto callthef‘ientirge records pertainingr'to present‘cas‘e from therespondents. , _ " H l C a J t V vf R IT SU 2 W.P.(C) No.\253 of2010 1O 2 That the Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the t . nature of certloran quashmg the document contained in Annexure P—3. 10.3 That the Hon’bie Court be pleased to issue a writ in the ‘ nature of mandamUs thereby cirecting the respondents to deciare the petitioner as duly elected Vice preSIdent of NagarPanchayat—Bodrl Tah Bllha Dlstt Bilaspur 10.3 Any other order(s) direction(s) wrlt(s) which the Hon ble _ Court maytdeem fit in the facts and Circumstances of the case.” i i . The petitioner thus in substance is challenging the contents of a f notice-Annexure P/3 by which the Returning Officer has fxed a date for § election to the post of Vice PreSIdent of Nagar Panchayat Bodri Tahsil l Bilha District Bilaspur(CG) and further for a declaration that he was i already elected as the Vice PreSIdent of the said Nagar Panchayat in the ; meeting which took place on 16 01 2010 iThe facts briefly stated are as under' The petitioner is an elected Parshad from Ward No 13 of ‘ Nagar Panchayat Bodri After the election of the ward members the f irst meeting of the Nagar Panchayat was called on 16 01 2010 by a ‘ notice dated 08 01 2010 for the purpose of electing Vice PreSIdent of he Nagar Panchayat The petitioner partICIpated in the meeting on i the said date and filed his nomination for the post of Vice—PreSIdent : According to the petitioner no other candidate had fled nomination for the said post on the said date therefore the petitioner ought to have been declared duly elected to the office of the Vice-PreSIdent under Rule 9 of the C G MuniCipalities (Election of Vice President) Rules 1998 The grievance of the petitioner is that even after the? aforesaid Situation he was not declared Vice-PreSident of the said ‘ Nagar Panchayat and the Returning Officer for the reasons best i' known to him, declared the said election process, which has taken E place on 16.01.2010, as void and the election for the ost of Vice f t p 3 yo I i . i W.P.(C) N0. 253 of 201t0 ! Bresident, Nagar Panchayat was rescheduled on 19.01.2010 (today itéelf) at 11:00 a.m. (Annexure P[3). ‘ " Shrl Prashant Jalswal learned Senlor Advocate appearing on ' behalf of the petitioner would submit that once the electlon has already taken place re-fIXIng a date for the same election by the Returning ' Officer was not In accordance wrth Iaw therefore the same may be quashed and tlll the disposal of the wrlt petltlon, an Interim direction be ' issued accordingly. ln th tter o Apex ’Court consrdered about the Jurisdiction of the igh Court to entertain a 3 pen o th ln an ssu ne rec r oui l u t inerupting obstructing or protracting th election proeings en t t ft the om h c In the present case admittedly, by notice Annexure P3 the E a / elec t he s b ec on 1 Tho e ne o ru of authrity and Jurisdiction bu te fact remais that righy o ongly, the g elctral ocess has commnc an te eectin oeding av ot i cuded ti toy. Thereoe priCi i the t cctnc e ' i to tn ttin r for the reliefs sought therein at this stage as the same would amount to , interrupting the election proceedings The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of / i India, therefore, fails and the same isnliable to be and is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the action of the respondentsvor the outcome of the election at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forUm. H titio under Article 226 f e Constitution of dia d to ie itrim "' ditions afte commencement of electorall process The Apex Ct 4 hed that if the Corts intervention sought for has he effect of : tr e ced th he _ JudiCial iremedy should be posponed till aer cpletion of suc : proeedings tion o t post of Vice PreSIdent ha een dirted to be held 1901 200 ugh the said notic is challegd n the gond . o t h n tl r wr eo pr eed d h lo prces he n conl ll da fr, on the above npIes, n facs and irumsaes of the cas | am not nclined enterai this writ peio There shall be no order as to cost. / s shyna ( ' e ma f Election Commission of India, Throug _ Secretary, vs Ashok Kumar and others, (2000) 8 S C C 216 the ?