•^ '> s^ ""»^ncff '/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} WRIT PETITION N0. A8 /2005 / ^ PETITIONER^%t .^ ^y /^^/ ^'v y^ /^' ^y RESPONDENTS Smt. Deepmala Sonwanj W/o Shri Dinesh Sonwani, Aged about 24 years, Occupation- Unemployed/House Wife, R/o Village-Tekarapara, P.0. Bori, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS ^•^>...^..;,..^ /• ^^^:ii^'" / State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Panchayat, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.). The Chief Election Officer, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The District Returning Officer / Collector, District Durg, (C.G.). The Assistant Returning Officer, Panchayat Election, Block Dhamdha, District Durg, (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1950 FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THEJMTURE OF MANDAMUS ETC. AND FOR APPROPRIATE ORDER XI-HC—78 •^sf "M!^i<nq, ^\i1^^]<o, r®!dl<y^< ...w^.^.o.......^..^.0^ 3TT^T '^^ (^f^^) W^T'^Tf^fN? TT^TT ^TI^T^T^NT ^RfT^R'R1N ^Tft^T 18-1-2005 On a mention be.mg made, th4 Shri Ali Asaar. counssi for tH Shri Sanjay 5. Agrawai, /resDondents. Heard both the counseJ, fteturn has aiready fiie^l on behaif of respondents-1, 3 and The petjtioner by thls wrlt the Constitution of India to! No,4 whereby the petjtioncr's the ground that she is und^rags to Return has been flied cn bi which it has bsen m^ntioned th4 hav^ fne t eJectlon whereas, the petitioner h^ years in the nomination paper ancj paper, Therefore, as per own adn| ye^rs of age, therefore, ^he is that is why her- nomjnatfon paper hQ| <^i^?<n<T!i 'E?TR^ff ^ fe^ <[^^.s< '^3tRR3?l^T cose is taten up for hearing. e petitionsr* Sovt. Advocate for tah^ State norrlination petition under Articte 226/227 of chdlenge the order of respondent paper ha^ rejected on bontest ths ^fection. ^haif of respondents 1, 3 and 4 in it as p@r the eiigibtiit^ criteria a ige of 21 years for contesting the TSeif has mentionsd her age as 19 also in the addltionai decbration sjssjon of ths peTJTloner she is 19 elialbie to conte^t the ejection been rejected. nbt XI-HC—78 '3^T ';:^FTMZr, ^fteTT8^ f^TRTy ^[^T'q^S^ (^f^^T) Wl -^m *nfN Barve -^- Learned coun^el for the pe^itioner submitted that th@ dats of birth of the petitioner ,is 5S=7-198D; therefore, thereby she is more than 24 years of ags* But, thi^ disputad fact 4snnot ^e 9one jnto in the writ jurlsdjctlon, as The petjtloner hersfif has mentioned in the nominatlon paper and aiso in the ^upporting a< In the circumstances, this p avail aiternatlve remedy availablc t^ ^i^f-ff%ri ^i^ff -H ••fe^;t Ti%T^R ^-^lTR-3Tr^ yditionaj declaratlon paper that she ha^ compjeted 19 years of age, th^refore, I do nor find any reason ro interfere in the etectjon process, btition Is liabte to be dismissed and jt is accordingjy dismissed. Howe|/er, the petitioner is at Jiberty to her under thc iaw, Consequently, M.(W.)P. No.^2/2005 sand I.A. No.203/2005 also stand of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge s.-.-.:,,~-Qr.;...tr-a=a2r'.«a'-fc-= y'f y