1 2025:CGHC:24864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2973 of 2025 Aas Jogi W/o Aas Lachchha Aged About 28 Years R/o Village And Post Arrabor, Tahsil Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Laxmi Kattam W/o Kattam Ramesh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post Arrabor, Tahsil Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Vijya Laxmi Kashyap W/o Samundar Kashyap Primary School Tarlaguda, At Present Golapalli Tahsil Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh (Presiding Officer) 3 - Saroj Kunwar W/o Virendra Adhikari Project Office Dornapal, Block Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh (Presiding Officer) 4 - Smt. Savita Verma W/o Ganesh Ram Verma Primary School Vardeltong, Block Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh (Presiding Officer) 5 - Smt. Lekhani Netam W/o Gopal Kumar Netam Boys Ashram Konta (Potacabin), Konta, Block Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh (Presiding Officer) 6 - Ku. Soyam Subbi D/o Malla Anganbadi Worker, Arrabor, Khaspara No. 5, Tahsil Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 7 - Returning Officer Girish Nimbalkar, Tahsildar Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 8 - Assistant Returning Officer Narath Kumar Manjhi, Chief Executive Officer, Konta, Tahsil Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 9 - Mukka Salvam S/o Mutta Agent, R/o Village And Post Arrabor, Tahsil Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 2 10 - Soyam Suman S/o Singa Agent, R/o Village And Post Arrabor, Tahsil Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 11 - Panda Rakesh S/o Papaiya Agent, R/o Village And Post Arrabor, Tahsil Konta District Sukma Chhattisgarh. 12 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) - Cum-Election Tribunal Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17/06/2025 Heard. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following relief(s) : “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.12 (Election Tribunal) to take time bound decision over the election petition of the petitioner pending before him as Case No.0/A- 89/15/2024-25. 10.2. Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 3 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the act of the respondent authorities are illegal, arbitrary and against the law. Respondent No.1 is enjoying the post of Sarpanch, though she has received lesser vote and as the dispute of election, where the respondent No.1 has been elected for the period of five years, the petitioner seeks time bound disposal of her election petition, pending before the respondent No.2. He further submits that the law in respect of early disposal of election petition has also been settled in Rajendra Singh Rana Vs. Swami Prasad Mourya reported in (2007) 4 SCC 270, Lili Thomas Vs. Union of India reported in (2013) 7 SCC 653, Sundar Lal Vs. Lachhan Das reported in AIR 1954 SC 221 and Jyoti Basu Vs. Debi reported in 1982 (1) SCC 691. He further submits that respondent No. 1 has been erroneously elected for the period of five years, though she has received less votes and in that aspects, the election petition is pending since 07.03.2024 and it is settled principles that the election petition shall be decided on day to day hearing in a time bound period. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Smt. Rehana Vs. State of UP and Others reported in (2016) 15 SCC 159 had in an election petition directed for time bound disposal. 3. Learned State Counsel not opposes the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 4 5. Considering facts of the case, submissions of counsel for the respective parties and further considering the fact that the election petition filed by the petitioner is pending from last three months. Further, consider the judgment in the case of Smt. Rehana Vs. State of UP and Others reported in (2016) 15 SCC 159, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.12 (Election Tribunal) to consider and decide the election petition of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible as per relevant rules, regulations and law. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of. C.C. as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant