SURYA PRAKASH Vs. RAMRATAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE to this petition is the order dated 13-2-2006 (Annexure P-l) passed in Election Petition No. 8/A/89 (21)/2004-05 (Ramratan v. Anant Kumar and Ors.) by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Authority, Bhilaigarh, wherein the election of the petitioner herein to the post of Sarpanch was declared void as per provisions of Rule 23 (1) (b) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short "the Rules 1995").

(2.) THE brief facts, in nutshell, for adjudication of the case are, that the respondent No. 1 herein challenged the election of the petitioner, held on 15-1-2005, whereby the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Pisid, under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "the Adhiniyam, 1993") read with provisions of Rules, 1995 on the ground of disqualification for encroachment of Government land. In the election petition, after having examined the facts of the case, the Prescribed Authority held that the allegation with regard to filing of wrong affidavits by the petitioner was not found proved, as there were no material to establish the allegation. Other allegation with regard to non-submission of expenses was also not found proved. The allegation with regard to encroachment of the Government land was found proved and on that basis the election of the petitioner to the post of Sarpanch was declared as void under Rule 23 (1) (b) of the Rules, 1995.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is apparent that even if the petitioner succeeds in this petition, the petitioner cannot join the office as Sarpanch. During pendency of this petition the election had already taken place and the Sarpanch has been elected, thus, the subsequent election cannot be set aside in this petition. It is well settled principle of law that if there is a provision for election petition, no writ petition is maintainable. In the matter of N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Manakkal, Salem Dist. and Ors. : [1952]1SCR218 , a six Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed as under: