HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION 227 No 2997 of 2010
Smt Rekha Rupa Sahu
...Petitioners
Versus
Vineet Bafna & Others
...Respondents
! Shri PR Patankar Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri Prateek Sharma Advocate for the respondent No1
CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 28/06/2010
: Judgement
ORDER ORAL
Passed on 28th day of June 2010
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 6/4/2010
(Annexure P-13) whereby an election petition filed by
the petitioner was dismissed summarily.
2. The brief facts in nutshell are that the
petitioner being aggrieved by the election on the post
of Janpad Member, Janpad Panchayat for Janpad Circle
No.3, Magarlod, District Dhamtari, preferred an
election petition on the grounds that several
irregularities were committed in counting of votes,
wherein the returned candidate respondent No.1 has
obtained 822 votes and the petitioner has obtained 819
votes. Thus, the respondent No.1 was declared as
elected Janpad Member. Being aggrieved, the petitioner
preferred an election petition under provisions of
Section 122 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam,1993 before the
Collector i.e. respondent No.16. The said petition was
dismissed on 6/4/2010.
3. Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election
Petitions, Corrupt Practices And Disqualification For
Membership) Rules, 1995 (in short Rule, 1995) provides
for presentation of election petition. It provides that
an election petition shall be presented by the person
making the petition or by a person authorised in
writing in this behalf by the person making the
petition. Further, the petition shall be accompanied by
as many copies thereof as there are respondents
mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be
attested by the petitioner under his own signature to
be a true copy of the petition.
4. Rule 5 of the Rules, 1995 makes a provision for
contents of the petition wherein it is prescribed,
inter alia, that the election petition shall be signed
by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down
in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the
verification of pleadings. Rule 8 of the Rules, 1995
provides that if the provisions of Rule 3 or Rule 4 or
Rule 7 has not been complied with, the petition shall
be dismissed by the specified officer provided that the
petitioner shall not be dismissed under this rule
without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being
heard.
5. The petitioner has sought relief of recounting of
votes in the election petition (Annexure P-10). The
respondent No.1 filed objection seeking dismissal of
the petition summarily under the provisions of Rule 8
of the Rules, 1995 on the ground that there is no
compliance of provisions of Rule 3, 4 or 7 of the
Rules, 1995.
6. The Collector (respondent No.16) having afforded
opportunity of hearing on 4/3/2010, 9/3/2010 and
further on 25/3/2010, after having considered all the
aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion that the
Advocate of the petitioner was not authorised to file
election petition and secondly, the election petition
and other annexed documents were not duly signed and
attested by the election petitioner. Having regard to
the above stated facts, the election petition was
dismissed summarily under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1995 for
want of compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the
Rules, 1995.
7. It is indisputable that the election petition was
not attested by the petitioner on each and every page
of the election petition, except it was duly signed by
the election petitioner on the last page of the
petition. Thus, the petitioner failed to comply with
the provisions of Rule 3 and 5 of the Rules, 1995.
8. Having considered the case from all angle, this
Court is of the view that there is no irregularity or
infirmity in dismissal of the election petition vide
impugned order dated 6/4/2010 (Annexure P-13).
9. The contention of the petitioner that he should
have been given one more opportunity to file fresh
election petition under the scheme of election deserves
to be rejected as there is no provision for granting an
opportunity after dismissal of the petition to file a
fresh petition. Thus, the election petition of the
petitioner was rightly dismissed under Rule 8 of Rule,
1995 summarily.
10. In view of the foregoing and for the reasons
stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
