..^T^ (^p '^' /Cv' ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGAKH : B1LASPUK Writ Petitipn No. 5961 of 2005 Petitioner Saiitosh, S/o Baldev Nisliad, Aged 30 years, R/o \?iUage- Sirsalchurd, Tahsil and Distt. - Durg(C.G.) Versiis Respondents 1. Lalit Agrawal, aged 30 yeax's, S/o Divi Prasad Agrawal. 2. Snit, Girija Bai, aged 54 yeai's, W/o Feku Prasad Tiwari. 3. Jiwai*akhan, aged 55 yeais, S/o Prein Lal Yadav, 4. Tikaoi Chand, aged 32 years, S/o Baratu Sapha (Dhnnar) 5. Dhru Narayan, aged 55 years, S/o Bharat Lal Agrawal, 6, Naresh, aged 45 years, S/o Ledgu Raai Dhitnar. 7. Bhunesiiwai', aged 21 yeai's, S/o Jagdish Yadav (All sl.no. 1 to 7 resident of ViUage- Sirsakhurd, Tahsil & Dist. Durg (C.G.) 8, Prescribed Aufhority (Paachayat), Sub Divisional Officer, Durg< 9. State Govt. of C.G. Thiough - The Distt. Election Officer (Paiichayat) Dist Dui'g (C.G.) .WJRrr.JlETlTgN_MNDER.ARJlCL|12.^^^^ CONSTITUTION OF !ND!A. (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri N, K. Chatterji, Advocate for fhe petitioner, Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Paael Lawyer for the respondents No. 8 & 9. ORDER (Passed on this 24th Day ofNovember, 2008) By ttiis petition, fhe petitioner challenges the order dated 27.5.2005 (Annexurc P/1), passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Diirg in Kevenue Case No. 16/A-89/04-05. The petitioner filed aa election petitiou under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhmiyam, 1993 tbr recounting of votes ia regard to the election held for fhe post of Sarpaach ofvillage Paachayat, Sirsakhurd. The Sub Divisional 9/1 Officer (Revenue), Durg by order dated 27,5.2005 du'ected for recountmg of votes ibr the booth nuiabers 38 aad 40 but rejected the prayer for recount of votes for the boofh num.ber 39 on ttie ground fh.at ftie election agent Balaiukund, who had llled Iiis atiidavit m. support o± fh.e eiection petition, has withdrawn his affidavit. 3, /Phereatter, tiie petitiouer filed a revision belbre the Additionai Collector, Dui'g agaitist ttie order dated 27.5.2005. By order dated 30.8.2UU5 (Aimexure P/2), passed in Case IMo. 23/A- 89/year 2004-2005, fhe revision was disinissed as not niaintaiaable ia view of the provisions ot Kxile 25 of fhe Chhattisgarh Pan.chayats (Election Petitions, Comipt Pi'actlces aiid DisquaUlication for Menibership) Rules, 1995. 4. Learaed counsel appeailag tbr the petitioner subniits fh.at when flie Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dui'g had tbmied the opitiion on the basis oi tlie atlidavits tlled by tih.e election agents of bdoth numbers 38 aad 40 to dn'ect tbr recountiiig, it amouiits tbat ttiere were certain in'egulanties, piTaia tacie found bv ttie concemed authority, Phus, the conceraed authority should have also directed tbr recoiuitmg of votes of boofh nuniber 39. 5. I have heard leanied counsel appearing tbr the parties aad perused fhe dociunents appended thereto. 6, It is adnutted case offhe petitioner th.at ttie petitioner has not raised aay objections or made aa appMcation for recoiinting of votes ia respect of booth No. 39, dunng polling and affcer counting of votes befbre declaration of fhe result. For tfie first time tiie petiUoner Iias raxsed ttus issue befbre the Sub 7. 8. 9. Divisional Otlicer (Kevenue), without aay basis for recountiag. For recountuig of votes, there should be sorae su'ong and cogent reasons fhat iiivalid votes have been counted, Uie votes polled iti tavour of fhe petiUoner have been counted iu favour ofother caiididates aad as such, result is vitiated. It is well settled piiticiple ot law ttiat will ol people, expressed tiirough election, caiinot be set asicte on a vague aiid ttmisy ground, as is niade m. tlie rastaiit case, except ui cases ot gross violaUou ot noi-ms, rules, regulations aiid statutoiy provisions. 1'tus Court, ui exercise ol its supeivisory juiisdiction under Amde 227 of tiie C^onstitution of India should reti'aiti itseM trom. iatertenng with the order passed by thie Court below, except in. such cases wherc perversity, illegaMty, irregularity or jurlsdictional error is writ lai'ge on the tace of the record, which is not in fhe present case, In view of fhe fbrcgoirig, tliis petition is de hors the fbundation aad Bierits, It is accordiagly disimssed, suianiarily. Thakiir Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge