SABYARANI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was elected as Member of Janpad Panchayat No.10 of Janpad Panchayat Pusour, District Raigarh. The election was conducted on 04.02.2015 and on the basis of the election, the petitioner was declared elected. The respondent No.3 filed an election petition before the Collector under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1993 and stated that the post of Janpad Panchayat Pusour was reserved for Scheduled Caste, though the petitioner recorded herself to be Scheduled Caste, but she was not; however, the same was accepted without any enquiry by the election officer. It was further stated that the petitioner Sabyarani do not belong to Scheduled Caste, consequently the Act & Rules were not followed. It is stated that the said contention was denied by the petitioner, however, despite the denial on record, no issues were framed; in a result, no evidence could have been led and directly the orders were passed, which is against the principles laid down in case of Kalka Prasad v. Ramji Lal & Others, 2002 3 MPHT 547 and the judgment passed by this Court on 31.08.2015 in WPC No.848 of 2015.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the State Respondents would submit that in para 3 of the election petition, the petitioner admitted the fact that she after marriage became Scheduled Caste and since there was an admission existing, no necessity was there for the election commission i.e. Collector to frame the issues and the order is well merited, which do not call for any interference.