HIGH COURT OF CHA‘ETISGARH\ BILASPUR WRIT PETITION C No.23? OF 2010 PETITIONER SmtBindulata Kesharwéni, W/p Shri R‘ajkumar Kesharwani; aggd’about 35 years, R/o Village and Post Sardha,Tahsil Lormi,District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS State @f Chahttisgarh, through the’ Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rufral Development, D.K.S. Bhawaré, Mantralaya, Raipur(C.G_.) ‘ The $ecretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan,‘ Mantrataya, Raipur (CG) . The Collector, Bllaspur, District; Bilaspur-(QG) I The Tahsildar, Lormi, District} ilaspur(CG) he Returning Officer, (Panchayat), Nagar Panchayat, ' Lormi, District Bilaspur(CG) 6 Shri Arun Sonkar, Tahsiidar, Lormi, District Bilaspur (CG) 7 ‘ Registration Officer (Panchayat), Biiaepur (CG) g WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF‘TH CONSTITUTION O M F INDIA ‘ \ , Aggearance : Shri Saurabh Dangi, Counsel for the petitioner. State/respondents Shri A,.S. Kachhwaha, No.1 Dy. to Advocate 4. General for the (18.01.2910) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA J. N Heard. Petitioner-Smt. Binduiata Kesharwani has filed this ’ 4 .petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution 'Of lnda for the / z \ i‘following reliefs l. N H 1 B T E W i : WRIT'PETITION (C ) NO.237OF 2010 $3 10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call th enti record pertaining to the case. That, this Hon’ble Co rt may kindly be pleased to direct the State Authorities to include the name of the petitioner in the voter list of Sardha Gram Panchayat. That, this Hon’ble Coyrt may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 04.01.2010 (Annexure P11) and the impugned list o’f deleted voters (Annexure Pf2). 10.4 Any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem tit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued in favour of the petitioner." 10.2 10.3 The petitioner, thus, in substance is praying for quashing the order passed by the competent authority in relation to finalization of the voter list for Panchayat Elections, as the competent authority has refused to include the name of the petitioner in the voter list of a particular ward on the ground that the same has been finalized long back and at the time of calling objections, no objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the election has already been notified and the date for filing nomination has also elapsed. n the opinion 'of this Court, the election process is already on and in such a situation, if the writ petition is entertained, the effect would be interrupting in the election process. re s v I © WRIT PETiTlON (C ) N02 7 OF 2010 On the above principle, l am fortified by the views taken i by the Supreme Court in the matter lfEIection Commission of India, Through Secretary. vs. A hok Kumar and others, {goon} 8 S.C.C. 216. Therefore, l am not inclined to entertain the writ‘pet-ition at this stage. The petition has no 'merit‘ T:he same is Iiable to be i dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. sdl— \ K § , , UNL