'lv PetiSoner ResDondents WritPetition {CSNo. S211 pf2SSS Smt. Leeiah/ati Gupte. W/o. Shri Shiv Prasad Gupta, aged about 30 years, residsnt of viiiage Nawapara, Tahsii and District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). Versus 1) Smt. Jyoti Satoathi, W/o. Shri Jeevan Saetpathi, aged abouf 30 years, resident of yi.'iage Nawapara ffl, Tahsil & District Raigarh (Chhattlsgarh). 2) Smt. Vinodini, W/o. Ravindra Sharma, resident of vi!!age Nawapara 31, , Tahsi! & District Raigarh (Chhattiigarh). '?- 3) Shri H.K. Patei, Presiding Officsr./Prsscribed Officer, Poiing Booth No.100,ViiJage Nawaparasr, , G'ram Panchayat Niwachan 04-05 through NSrvachan Cffisr, Gram Panchayat Nirvachan 04-re, Biock Pussore, Tahsii, District Raigarh (CG). 4) Shri P.R. Sao, Presiding Officer/Prsscribed Officer, Po'ing Booth No.99, Vifl Nawapara w Gram Panchayat Nirvachan 04-05 Tahsil & Disi. Raigarh (CG). 5) Shri Pramod Sharma. Tahsiidsr, Sub Tahsil Dhamda, Tahsil/Distt. Durg (CG). 6) Shri Anuj Patei, CEO Ba! Vikas Khand, Batoda, Distt. Janjgff Champa (CG). (Writ Petition under Articie 226/227 of Constitution of Inciia) SB: Hon'bie Mf. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: ?i4r. Manindra Shriyastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arnit Vsrma, Advocate for th& petitioner. Mr. U.K. Bharat, counsei for the respondert No.1. Mr. Somnath Vsrma, counset for ths respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Passed cn this 22"a day of January, 2009) By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 16-10-2CX56 (Annexure P/1) oassed by the Eiection Tritsunal (Sub D'tvisionai Officer- Revenue), Raigarh, on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. tt ( ' .'.•^.t. :t i^a s^-. •',/.•' 5 'te?""J? ^gggs^ 2) Shri U.K. Bharat, iearned counsei appearing Tor the eisction petitioner in Eiection (Revenue) Case No.40i'A-89/04-05/ respondent No.1 and Shri Somnath Verma, iesrned counsei appearing for the eiection petitioner in Eiection (Revenue') Case No.49/A-89/04-05»'respondent No.2 submit that ie order passed In the siection petition may be considsred afresh by the Etection Tribunai as the parties were not afforded opportunity to lead evidence and sxsmine their witnesses. 3) jn view of the above submission made by ieamed counsei appearing for ^ fhe parttes and on perusa! ofthe papers, it is found that fhe election pstifion has been decided without affording proper opportunity of hearing to tead evidence and examine iheir witnesses, the impugned order dated 16-10-2006 (Annexure P/1) is set aside and the matter is restored to the orig'inaS fiie in the court of Eiection Tribuna! i.e., Sub Divisionai OfTicer, Raigarh. 4) Having regard to the facts situatlon of the case, the matter has been pendlng consideration before the Eiection Tribunal since 2005, it would be appropriate and proper for the Election Tribunal to consider and decide the matter afresh, in accordance with iaw, as eariy as possibte, preferably within a period oftwo months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. Sd/- . Satish KAgnihotri Judge P .iu ./^-