iV .} B •^ -/ ^•^-1^/, IN THE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ WRIT PETITION N0.^-5^-2> /2005 ,/ PETITIONER Smt. Shyam Bai W/o Ramdayal, Aged about 40 years, Caste Satnami, R/o village Madhubankhurd, gram Panchayat Pipar Bhauna^Tah. Bilaigarh, District Raipur [C.G.]. VERSUS RESPONDENTS f ^y ^ ri » ^.<7R.'* L<f*' .p^y^ ^••w.^r i '\.^<** .**'' ^' -~ ^.*'" -n\? y ^**' ^ss^ ^e^y .2] ^>''-??"•,v ^yy ^.A sffl- <] Janiram S/o Teejram, Caste Satnami, R/o village Madhubankhurd, gram Panchayat Pipar Bhauna, Tah. Bilaigarh, District Raipur [C.G.]. Ram Kumar S/o Awadhram, R/o gram Panchayat Pipar Bhauna, Tah. Bilaigarh, District Raipur [C.G.]. The Returning Officer, Harish Chandra Dahariya, Nayab Tahsildar, Bilaigarh, Tah. Bilaigarh, District Raipur [C.G.]. S.D.0., Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur [C.G] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA fpRCTap'n^ 'dT.q'-<4i<4»<'>*<,y>'rfl'<i*i<»,R»i'<iy>< ^f ^s~63fcr l^ aii^CT^rR'fi* ciatrafl'^giiCTiw c:^s.; IBi»l OTt9T q'RP (^g?S) TRirw^iteT an^?T 7.9.20Q5 Shri Ravish Verma & petitioner. Shri Awadh Triapthi, Ad Nona on behalf o^respoi Shri Parag Kotecha, Pane The petitioner by +he legality, propriety and correcti learned Specified Officer (5 Petition N0.37A-89 (21) of. the Specified Officer allowec recount of the votes. !rief fact.s hecessary fi that the petitioner herein alor the election for the post of S Tehsil Bilaigarh, District Raipu election the petitioner herein No.l obatained 270 votes, the elected Soirpanch and a petitioner. However dissatisf herein fiied an election pet Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 si'"t:&eeo5-20,000 which thc^ potitioncr hci'eiB *14fd41'1 *ll*fdT<l'Is'^l '(lyn<(it ^aiRltdilSn ^ IShri F.S. Khare, Advocates for the 1/ocdte for counsel for respondent No.l. hdent Nos.2 & 3. , Lawyer for respondent No.4. instant petition has questioned the jiess of order dated 4.5.2005 passed by j.&.O., Bilaigarh) in Panchayat Election 2!|)05 filed by respondent No.l whereby the election petition and ordered for jir -^fe disposal of this writ petition are g with respondent Nos.l & 2 contested jarpdnch, Sram Panchayat Pipar Bhauna, t-, which was held on 15.1.2005. In 1+iat ibtained 271 votes, whereas respondent refore, the petitioner was declared as cert-ificate was issued in fgvour of the :jed with the resuit, respondent No.l Ition under Section t22 of the C.6. and notices of the same were issued of filAtl 'i'e.p ^.iti ul^Lliijil. pd..]'llion. ^ d i •^ti.rairt^wcTl'a'fKp, Ririi'Hyt »tl*tc4l^lTT^ 3n$?rwrR'<i* aair3n^?r*<ii* atT^srqgcp (ipfg^RS) ^1^200 points on which the parties wer; in Section 122 of the C.S. Pon, before possing the order foi] required to satisfy himsel^. jn 1995 that whether the elec statement of all material facts setforth with sufficient partici is called in question,and also tq of the parties arter conductin^ able to make out a case fo'r i| evidence. ,' In view of above legal order dated 4.5.2005 per'usali Officer passed the foilowing "Perused the matter. judgment is passed (1) -t\ the legal provisions, th^ rejected. (2) the case 121/04-05 be tagged wi-^ as part of this case an^ eyidence and therefore, If we look into the abovej contrary to the Ruies as the ®i .the eiudence, .without framincl <ni«Io9<i1-iti*inT(fTs>^| xluitslx ^3lf^1T3II^T ' at yariance on the grounds mentjoned |:hayat Raj.Adhiniyam, 1993. As such, recount the Specified Officer was ai|:cordance with the Rute 5 of the Rules, (t-ion petition (a) contains o; concise on which th.e petitioner relies and (b) lars, the grounds. on which the election satisfy himself based on the evidence the tpial that the petitioner has been [ecount on. the basis of pleadings and [osition, if we look into the impugned .of order reyedls that the Specified ortJer; Cobsidered the fac'rs and following ^e petition is in accordance with refore, preliminar'y objection is fpf this Court bearing No.54/B- h this case which will be treated there is no need of any other lUecision taken fop recount." order, the order is pa+ently illegal and me has been passed witiiout recording _the_j'ssues and without hearina the mmi»BBi Xt-HC-78 '$cci'owi(0«, cTl<(i*it»,fioiftyY *W1V9lWffW .3ii$?rmR'<i* aanaii^?Tsb*<i'b 3:n^?pra^;('pfg^) parties;' therefore, same i; petition is atlowed, order m Rufes is hereby,quashed dn< Officer,Bi,iaigaRh) is din accordance with the Rules final order after hearing tl' Officer to decide tlie eied within aperiodof three mo With the direction a-1 Consequently, M.( disposed of. Cerfified copy as per (WOP t(l)l^l[cWi1'1 *11*fdr^'ls'-el\Rn<(i'( ^aif^Hsii^w liable to be set aside. Accordi'ngly, the Ipugned bemg perverse' and contrary to the U learned Specified Offter (Sub Divisional ^cted to conduct the proceedings in ['U & 12 of the Rules; 1995 and pass the e parties in the matter. Learned Specified ion petition as early as possible preferably iiths. • i oresaid, the petition stands disposed of. 3. Nos.2098/05 & 2482/05 also stand rutes. Sd/- 1--C. Bhadoo Judge BK •w^ \