1 2025:CGHC:39135 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4045 of 2025 Mahendra Singh S/o Balwan Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Semariya Patralaya Jhafal, Tahsil And Police Station - Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jitendra Singh Rajput S/o Late Shri Baran Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Semariya Patralaya Jhafal, Tahsil And Police Station - Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 2 - Narendra Singh S/o Ramfal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Semariya Patralaya Jhafal, Tahsil And Police Station - Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Returning Officer Panchayat Election, Tahsil Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Returning Officer Gram Panchayat, Semariya, Janpad Panchayat Lormi Rajendra Nirmalkar Block Education Officer, Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Prescribed Authority Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Ms. Deeksha Jaiswal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, PL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: 2 “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 5 to decide the election petition filed by the petitioner under Section 122 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, by framing issues and taking evidences of the parties, expeditiously, within stipulated time, in accordance with law. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.5/SDO to consider and decide the pending election petition of the petitioner Annexure P-1 as per relevant rules/law within an stipulated time frame. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that he is having no objection to the limited prayer made by counsel for the applicant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Considering facts of the case, prayer made by counsel for the applicant and not opposed by the State Counsel, without entering into the merits of the case, writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.5 to consider and decide the pending election petition of the petitioner Annexure P-1, expeditiously in accordance with relevant rules/law/regulation after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-