HIRMATI VIRTE Vs. FOOLKUNWAR MARAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein, who is returned candidate for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Barahnagar, Tahsil Ramanujganj, Distt.Balrampur- Ramanujganj, has filed this writ petition calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the order dtd. 22/7/2015 (Annexure P/1) by which the Specified Officer has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the election petition.

(2.) The petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Barahnagar on 12/3/2015. Defeated candidate respondent No.1 herein filed the election petition under Sec. 122 of the Chhattisgarh Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 read with the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter called as 'Rules of 1995') claiming that the election of the present petitioner be declared void as the petitioner herein is a candidate belonging to the unreserved General Category, whereas post of Sarpanch was reserved for Scheduled Tribe. In the said election petition, the present petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC stating inter-alia that the election petition has not been properly attested as required under Sec. 3 (2) of the Rules of 1995 and other mandatory provisions of the Rules of 1995 have not been followed, therefore, the election petition deserves to be dismissed, which was duly replied by respondent No.1 herein. Learned Specified Officer by order dtd. 22/7/2015 rejected the application and fixed the case for written statement, against which, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr.Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that there is total non-compliance of Rule 3 (2) of the Rules of 1995 and Rule 3 is mandatory by virtue of the provisions contained in Rule 8 of the Rules of 1995, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.