x x x ~> xxx\x\x\x\V\\» mm PETITIoN No. ()6? LL 9F 2001 V PETEEION UNDER AETICLE 226 / 227 OE THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ; E v/5as Ram, aged about 27 §§¥s, EgiITIONER - ‘ son of Parasram Kurmi, resident of village Kasa Block Nawagarh, Tab: Rawagarh, §ost Godhana, dist. Janjgir—Champa (Chhattisgarh) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Panchayat Department, D.K.Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Sub-Divisional Officer, Janjgir, dist.Janjgir-Champa(Chhattisgarh). Gopaldas, aged about 39 years, son of Baijudas, Sarpanch, village Panchayat, Kasa, Tah:Nawagarh, post Godhana, dist.Janjgir—Champa. (Chhattisgarh) #. Returning officer: Janpat Panchayat, Japjgir, dlsy.JanJgir-Champa (CnnattiSgarn). X5 EETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE C§NSTITUTIGN OF'INDIA DET$ILS OF THE PETITION /«y§ o¢€&‘ ,A"‘3. ‘&:§yF‘. cM Heard Smt. Anju Ahuja petitioner and Mr. Ranvir 8i OR-D {ER The oréer impugne¢ in the Sub—Divisional Officer: the election petition filed dismissed on the ground that impleaded as aparty and als4 there waskxgefée illegaiity in It is submitted by 1e that the order of dismissal v Opportunity of being heard t other hand, Mr. Ranvir Singh‘, submits that under the relev in this regard the impugned Officer is appellable before , learned counsel for the _ ngh, learned GA tor the State“ this petition was passed by Ianjgir on 21/1 2/2000 by which oyrthe writ petitioner was the Presiding Of£icer was not a on the further grounc that 4~~”‘\.._ armed counsel for the petitioner yes issued without affording any 3 the writ petitioner. 0n the learned GA for the State ant provisi‘bns of law prescribed arder passed by the sub~Divisional the ggtgér via/VO’NM L%W\O the Collector» It is further contended by Mr. Ranvir Singh that in fact, if aggrieved by the order of Collector. stil? the matter can be agitated beiore the Commissioner” ' e ! $i?ce there are some other remedies available for the petitioner i i' _L it is contended, that the {we are: , ( .02. . x“, XLHC—zz , O m W _ w p No. 7.4/2001 ‘ mm W 200 ‘&‘ a \ 1mg WWW ““Wmagiml 3‘ 3/5/2ob1 2 oo exhausted those remedies petiticmer ought to have before he apgroaches this of the Constitution of In 0n perusal of the writ petition particular). in the peculiar facts and l repreeenting the parties case, though there ie a p to expedite the matter pa fact that the petition wa ‘the petitioner any opoort to lead evidence in suppe be fair to pass the folio presiding Officer in the tanoes is not necessary averments made in the also after hearing coun5e y the impugned order and circumstances o£ this In my View. th present circum party; 2) The Sub-Divisi to examine the will include g parties to leal their rive 1 co: 3) 1) Court under krticle 226 aia. J ’ ? revision for appealwin ordex; « rticul'arly because of the s dismissed without giving unity of being heard and also rt of his contention, it will wing order : g bnal Officer is incumbent petition on merit which iving oppq tunity to the d evidence in supnort of‘ ntentions; 4) To give adequa e Opportunity of being heard; is a be ic right for every citizen/Jet a1 ne a litigant. a Accordingly, t e impugned order passed by the SDO Onn 1/12/2000 in case no" 9C-144/2000 , i set aeide. The learned SDO shall hear the parties on merit and dispose of thi petition by speaking order . The SD ’ a period of th o£ receipt of shall make an endeavour to dispose of he entire matter within ee months from the date his order° i x i i i GRPRJ»eFS/H ’ h’2OOJ»—SO.UOO. XI—HC-22 that it will be submit s act as $arpanch. no.3 to be made before the Sub-Divi s‘ any order in the app to pa$s the Court for necessary interim let the petitioner approach relieio \ Smt. Anju Ahuja, }ear ed counsel for the petitioner » to restrain the respondent xm I think this request should onal Officer, who is competent lication . In other words, with the aforesaid obi‘servationsand‘ directions, this petition i6 dispd’sed ofa J Sdl- j Chief Justice [@W /w)