Allowed

Sukhnath Manjhi v. Muneshwar Sidar

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jul 2015WP227/493/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order that closed the petitioner's right to file a reply to an election petition, the High Court permitted the petitioner two weeks to file the reply and ordered payment of costs for condoning the default.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file reply within two weeks; petition allowed subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- costs and undertaking not to take unnecessary adjournments.

Sukhnath Manjhi Vs Muneshwar Sidar — Election Law | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WP227 No. 493 of 2015

¶4

Sukhnath Manjhi S/o Shri Munu Manjhi Aged About 42 years, Caste Bhuienya, Elected Panch, Ward No.1, Gram Panchayat Sundaru, Block/Tehsil Farsabahar, Distt.- Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Muneshwar Sidar, S/o Chaman Sidar, Aged About 36 Years, Caste Gond R/o Ward No.1, Village-Sundaru, Block/tehhsil Farsabahar, Distt. Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶9

District Election Officer/Collector Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶10

Returning Officer Panchayat Farsabahar, Officiating Shri S.K. Yadav Tehsildar, Farsabahar, Distt. Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶11

Namankan Adhikari Assistant Returning Officer Panchayat Farsabahar, Officiating Shri Dubey Ranger (Forest Ranger) Tapkara, Distt. Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner:	Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate
For Respondent No.1:	Shri Vinod Tekam, Advocate
For Respondents No.2 to 5:	Shri Arun Sao, Deputy AG

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

07/07/2015

¶17

In the election of Gram Panchayat Sundaru, the petitioner was elected as Panch of Ward No.1 of the said Gram Panchayat. His election was challenged by respondent No.1 before the Sub Divisional Officer. However, as the petitioner could not file his reply, vide order dated 4.6.2015 his right to do so has been closed and it is this order which is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner is not permitted to file his reply, the natural consequence of the same would be allowing the election petition filed by respondent No.1 and thereby he would be thrown out of the office of Panch just for a trivial ignorance on his part in not filing the reply. He submits that in fact the counsel engaged by the petitioner had suffered a paralytic attack and therefore reply could not be filed. According to the counsel for the petitioner, two weeks' time may be given to the petitioner to file reply before the Sub Divisional Officer and thereafter the said authority may proceed further with the case.

¶19

State counsel submits that in case this Court is going to grant an opportunity to the petitioner, at least suitable cost may be imposed on him for being ignorant in filing reply which would be payable to respondent No.1. He further submits that let the petitioner give an undertaking that before the Sub Divisional Officer he would not unnecessarily take adjournments and shall offer every co-operation for early disposal of the election petition.

¶20

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to file his reply within a period of two weeks form today before the Sub Divisional Officer and on that being done the said officer would take the same on record and proceed further with the case. Accordingly, the petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- by the petitioner to respondent No.1.

¶21

Petitioner shall refrain from taking un-necessary adjournments before the Sub Divisional Officer and offer due co-operation before the said authority so that the election petition can be decided at the earliest.

¶22

Sd/(Pritinker Diwaker) Judge

¶23

Jyotishi

Sukhnath Manjhi v. Muneshwar Sidar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhnath Manjhi v. Muneshwar Sidar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mastari Bibi and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dinesh Chandra Panigrahi Vs Smt. Bhanmati Since Deceased and Ors.

Anuradha Jain Vs The Convener, Common Law Admission Test clat-2015 andors.

Smt. Anjali Nag Vs Suresh Kumar @ Surendra Kumar and Anr.

Smt. Geeta Soni and Others Vs Smt. Punni Bai and Others

Maa Laxmi Mahila Swa-sahayata Samuh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh