J£» < C^ (a^T^ PETITIONER ^^^ ..•'"' .^Y 1(?>«*''' ••'yy*' ^ ..<itT RESPONDENTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P. (Q N0. 3\°\ OF 2011 i Usha Bai W/o Vishnu Singh, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Bhatruse, Post Saihamalgi, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G. (Non-Applicant no.l) VERSUS 1. Jamotri Divakar W/o Melan Divakar, aged about 28 years, R/o Village Motesara, Post Saihamalgi, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G. ( Applicant) 2. Anjulata Bharti W/o Rohit, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Bhatruse, Post Saihamalgi, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdh'am C.G. ^. Karuna Bai W/o Sindar Singh, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Bhatruse, Post Saihamalgi, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G. 4. Prabha Bai W/o Ram Bihari, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Somnapur (Purana), Post Saihamalgi, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G. (, ^ 10. 5. Rukhmani Koshle W/o Devcharan Koshle, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Somnapur (Purana), Post Saihamalgi, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G. 6. Sharda W/o Omprakash, aged about 23 years, R/o Village Somnapur (Purana), Post Saihamalgi, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G. 7. The Presiding Officer, Booth No. 263 (Somnapur) through the Returning Officer, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G. 8. The Presiding Officer, Booth No. 264 (Bhatruse) through the Returning Officer, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G. 9. The Returning Officer (Panchayat) and Tahsildar, Pandariya, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G. (The respondent no. 2 to 9 were non- applicant no. 2 to 9 before the learned Specified Officer) Sub Divisional Officer cum Specified Officer under Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. ^^^^. PETiTIONER HiGH COURT OF CHHMT!SGARH : BiLASPUR WR1T PETITiON (C) N0. 3101 OF 2011 UshaBai ko RESPONDENTS Versus Jamotri Divakar & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of indla) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Dashrath Prajapati, Advocate for the petiti'oner. Shashank Thakur, Panel LawyerfortheStats. ORDERrORAU (Passed on this 2QU1 day of June, 2011) 1. Challengein this petition is to the order dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure P-1), whsrebythe Sub Divisionai Officer (Revenue) Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) has dismissed the objection of the petitioner, which according to the petitioner, was mandatory. 2. Upon perusal of the record, jt appears that the respondent No.1 fiied an election petition againstthe petitioner impugnmg^^^^^ petitioner on the post of Sarpanch. According to the jearned counsei appearing for the petitjoner there was no strict compliance of the provisions of Rute 3(2) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (ElectJon Petitions, Corrupt Practices & DJsquaIification for Membership} Rules, 1995,as the eiection petitioner/respondent No.1 has notfiled as many copies as respondents.J'hus.the same ought to have been dlsmissed at thethreshoid. 3, On going through the jmpugned order, it appears that aJI the respondents havebeen duiy suppiied with the copy of the eiection petition and the case has been fixed for filing written statement. The petition is stlll pending conslderation.Thus, the defect is notfatal tothe petitioner, as it 1s curabie. !t appears that the said defect has aiready been cured by suppiy of copy of the eiection petition to al! the respondents. 4, Accordingiy, the writ petition Is shorn of merit and is accordingly djsmlssed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok