LAWS(CHH)-2006-12-19

MANOJ SINGH THAKUR Vs. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR

Decided On December 04, 2006
MANOJ SINGH THAKUR Appellant
V/S
RAMESH SINGH THAKUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 441-F of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (henceforth, "the Act") is directed against the judgment dated 14/02/2006, passed by District Judge, Raipur, in Election Petition No. 6/ 2005, whereby learned District Judge dismissed the election petition filed under Section 441 of the Act, by the Petitioner for declaration that the election of the returned candidate - Respondent No. 1 from Vaman Rao Lakhe Nagar Ward No. 64 of Raipur, (henceforth, "the Ward") is void.

(2.) NOTIFICATION for election of Councilor and Mayor of Raipur Municipal Corporation was issued by District Election Officer, Raipur, along with various stages of the elections and period during which those stages were scheduled i.e., 22/11/2004 to 29/11/2004 for filing of nominations, 30/11/2004 for scrutiny of nomination papers, 01/12/2004 to 02/12/2004 for withdrawal of nomination, 17/ 12/2004 for polling, 19/12/2004, for counting of votes and 24/12/2004 for declaration of the results of the elections in Chhattisgarh Gazette.

(3.) PETITIONER, who lost the election, filed election petition under Section 441 of the Act, for declaration of election of Respondent No. 1, who was a returned candidate from the Ward to be void, inter alia on the grounds that Respondent No. 1 committed corrupt practice, prior to the date of polling, PETITIONER distributed voters' slip containing his photograph and election symbol amongst the voters, misused Government machinery for getting forged votings in various booths and erroneous counting of votes, took help of his relative Surendra Singh Thakur, who was appointed as Polling Officer on duty at Polling Booth No. 470 (A), the ruling government helped him by constructing road, toilet and drainage in the Ward during operation of "Code of Conduct" and the canvassing material distributed amongst the voters by Respondent No. 1 does not contain the name of printer, publisher and number of copies.