Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2072 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1217 of 2024 1 - Gunsi Kashyap W/o Balram Kashyap, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village-Tekapal, Post- Matval, Tehsil And District- Kondagaon (Cg) (Election Petitioner) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Village Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Collector Kondagaon, District-Kondagaon (Cg)
Legal Reasoning
3 - Smt. Pramila Baghel W/o Chamlu Baghel, Aged About 49 Years R/o Badekurushnar, Post- Matwal, Janpad Panchayat Kondagaon, Constituency No. 24, Tehsil- Kondagaon, District- Kondagonn (Cg) (Respondent No.1/returned Candidate) 4 - Smt. Devki Mandavi, W/o Sukhdev Mandavi, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Matwal, Post_matwal, Janpad Panchayat Kondagaon, Constituency No. 24, Tehsil- Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (Cg) (Respondent No. 2) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.01.16 23:54:05 +0530 2 5 - Returning OfÏcer, Panchayat Janpad Panchayat Kondagaon, Constituency No. 24, District- Kondagaon (Cg.) (Respondent No.3) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) For Respondents/State For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocate : Shri Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer. : Shri P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 13.01.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner who had contested the election for the post of Member of Janpad Panchayat- Kondagaon, Area No. -16 preferred the present writ petition seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure P/7) and to declare the petitioner as winning candidate/return candidate or remand the matter back for fresh adjudication in light of the order of the High Court. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in short is that the petitioner who had contested the election for the post of Member of Janpad Panchayat- Kondagaon, Area No. -24, preferred an election petition before the prescribed authority. The said election petition is allowed on the ground that the petitioner has secured more votes than the return candidate and accordingly set aside the election of the return candidate. Against the order of Collector the respondent no. 3 preferred a writ petition bearing no. WPC 5253/2021 in which vide order dated 02.01.2023 set aside the order passed by the Collector 3 on the ground that no issues were framed by the Collector while adjudicating the dispute and the matter remitted back to the Election Tribunal with a direction to proceed further with the stage from the time the reply was filed by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 moved an application regarding the maintainablity of the election petition and the same application has been considered by the Collector and vide impugned order dated 11.07.2023, the Collector rejected the election petition on the ground that as per the relevant rules the petitioner has not signed in each and every page of the petition and the petition has not paid the proper court fee and hence, rejected the election petition of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the order of High Court dated 02.01.2023 in WPC 5253/2021 submits that the earlier writ petition was remanded back to the Election Tribunal i.e. the District Collector Kondagoan with a direction to proceed further with the stage from the time, the reply was filed by the respondents and there was a direction to frame issues so far as clerical and arithmetical error in the calculation and casting of votes after giving reasonable opportunity to parties to laid evidence, if any and also directed to pass a fresh order within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, learned Election Tribunal accepted the application of the respondent no. 3 by which the respondent no. 3 raised a plea of maintainability of the election petition as the petition was not in accordance with the relevant rule. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that learned Election Tribunal ought not to have consider the application for
Decision
maintainability of election petition as the writ petition was disposed off earlier and remitted to the Election Tribunal to hear the election petition from the stage of reply filed by the respondent, hence, the consideration of application of respondent no. 3 about the maintainability of the election petition by the Election Tribunal is contrary to the order passed by this Court in WPC 5253/2021. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 would submit that the application for maintainability of the election petition filed by the elected candidate was in accordance with law and the elected candidate has every right to raise objection to the maintainability of the election petition, as the election petition filed by the petitioner was not in accordance with the rules framed for election petition i.e. “Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership), Rules, 1995” (in brevity 'Rules of 1995') and the Election Tribunal has rightly consider the application filed by the respondent no. 3. Once the application for maintainability of election petition has been filed by the respondent, it was the duty of the election tribunal to pass order by considering the said application, as the petitioner has filed the election petition in clear violation of provision of the Rules, 1995, hence there is no illegality in the order passed. 6. I have heard both the counsel for the parties. 7. It is righty pointed out by the petitioner that the election petition was remanded back to the election Tribunal to hear the election petition 5 from the stage of filing of reply by the respondents and there was a direction to frame issue so far as clerical and arithmetical error in the calculation and casting of votes are concerned. But it is also the duty of the Election Tribunal to entertain each and every application which is filed by the respondent or the election petitioner. The respondent no. 3 herein the elected candidate moved an application for maintainability of the election petition stating that the petitioner has filed the election petition in clear violation of the provision of Rules, 1995 and also alleged that the petitioner has not afÏxed proper court fee in the election petition as per the provision of Rule 3 of Rules, 1995. Questioning the maintainability of the election petition filed by the respondent no. 3 alleging that the election petition filed by the petitioner in violation of the Rules, 1995 and the same is not maintainable. Learned Collector/Election Tribunal sought reply from the present petitioner to the application moved by the respondent no. 3 about the maintainability of the election petition and after filing of such reply the Election Tribunal considered the application as well as reply and after hearing the parties examined the record of the case and found that the petitioner herein has filed the election petition in violation of Rule 3 (2) of Rule 1995, which provides that the every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof, as there are respondent mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition and it was also found by the respondent Election Tribunal that the petitioner has not submitted slip of security amount of Rs. 500/- before the 6 competent authority, which is mandatory as per the Rule 7 of the Rules 1995. Hence, the Collector Kondagoan i.e. Election Tribunal has rightly rejected the election petition filed by the petitioner as the same was in violation of Rule 3(2), 7 of the Rules 1995. The ground taken by the petitioner that the Election Tribunal committed gross illegality by accepting the application for maintainability of the election petition is without any substance, it is the duty of the Election Tribunal to accept and consider each and every application moved in accordance with the law before him and Election tribunal has rightly considered the application and rejected the election petition as the same was in violation of mandatory provision of Rule 3(2), 7 of the Rules 1995. Hence the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib