UMA CHELSE Vs. ANITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking sub-section (1) of Sec. 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2006"), the writ appellant having lost before the writ court has filed this writ appeal calling in question the impugned order by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition finding no merit and holding that the order passed by the Specified Officer dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant questioning the election of respondent/returned candidate is in accordance with law.

(2.) Mr. Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant (writ petitioner before the writ Court), would submit that Rule 11 of the C.G. Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification of Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1995") and Rule 1 to 3 of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to the election dispute and the Tribunal cannot deviate from the procedure. He would further submit that the primary and mandatory duty of the Tribunal was to frame issues before coming to stage of evidence. In absence of issues, it was not possible for the appellant to adduce evidence as there were disputed questions of fact and law in the election petition. He would also submit that election dispute is not a common law dispute and strict compliance of statutory rules is necessary and as such, the impugned order as well as the order of Specified Officer deserves to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.25/State and Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, learned counsel for respondent No.1, would support the impugned order.