1 2025:CGHC:14463 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1554 of 2025 1 - Lokesh Sahu S/o Kunjram Sahu Aged About 40 Years Elected Sarpanch, At Village Nari, Janpad Panchayat Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Nari, Tahsil Bemetara, Janpad Panchayat Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Election Commission Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector And District Election Officer Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ Returning Officer Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Tahsildar/ Competent Authority Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Gajendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Rameshwar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Nari, Tahsil Bemetara, Janpad Panchayat Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Venketesh Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 26/03/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to 3 call for the entire record the case of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notice dated 11.03.2025 issued by the respondent no. 4 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to grant such other relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice has been issued against the petitioner is not in accordance with law. He further submits that the petitioner has won the election as such he is not required to be issued any notice. He further submits that the petitioner is being harassed by his opponents as such his petition may be considered. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents opposes the same. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From the perusal of the contents of the petition, as well as the relief sought by the petitioner, it seems that the candidate who has lost the election has filed an Election Petition against the returned candidate making some allegation in respect of his 4 Election and as such the petitioner will returned candidate has been issued notice by the prescribed authority as such only for the reasons that in an Election Petition has been filed in which notices has been issued to the respondents, this Court do not consider to be a fit case to entertain as such there is no element of any harassment in issuing notice in an Election Petition. 6. As such the petition as filed by the petitioner is being devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat