IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT- BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH w.P.(u[A227)N0. ggSG /2010 $5N§£E BiEg‘gwg ETITIONER : Jamuna Bai, W/o. Devsingh Sidar; APPLICANT Election aged about 55 years, R/o. Gram Petitioner Panchayat Lakha, Chiraipani, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Bhagwati Ladha, W/O. Budhram Lodha, Smt. Radhika, W/o. Shankar Lodha, Smt. Sahodara, W/o. Banauram Bhuihar, A‘j above R/o. Village Lakha, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C;G.) Presiding Officer, Pooling booth no. 118, Lakha, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) K 4] / 5] Sub—Divisional Officer/Specified Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA P HIGH‘COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR/ WRIT PETITION (227) N0. 5390 of2010 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate forkthe petitioner. Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy G.A. for the State. ORDER (ORAL) ’ 15‘ day of November, 2010) (Passed on Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Officer i.e. Election Tribunal without following statutory provisions of law, vide the impugned order dated 23.08.2010 (Annexure P/l) has decided and dismissed the election petition filed by the petitioner, in respect of election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Lakha, District Raigarh wherein the respondent No. l was declared as returned candidate, without framing the issuesiand recording evidence of witnesses. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submit that no issues were framed nor any witness was examined by the Election Tribunal before deciding the election petition, finally and the statutory procedural requirement has not been complied with. 3. This Court in Parvatia v. Padmim' & Others] and Shyam Ratan v. Siyaram & Othersz held that no election petition can be decided without framing issues. ‘ 2005 (2) CGLJ 335 2 w.P. No.4270 ofzoos (decided on 19-1 1-2008) . r, \ PETITIONER Jamuna Bai. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Smt. Bhagwati Lodha & Others. Again this Court in Balaram Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh & Othérs3 after considering various provisions held as under: “9. In the case on hand, there is a material denial of the proposition, as affirmed by the aplicant before the election tribimal. Thus, framing of issues and examination of witnesses i necessary before passing the order. The impugned order passed by the election tribunal, i pears to 'have been passed without compling with the substantial procedure as provided under the provisions of law”. In View f foregoing, the impugned order dated 23.08.2010 Annexure P/l) is quashed. The matter is’remitted back to the Election Tribunal to restore to its original tile for decision of the case, in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. It is epected that the lection petition may be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. NO order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge r’i Amir «. 3 W.P.(C) No.3573 of2010 (decided on 31—08-2010) s p t ap y o ( x e '