1 - Deepak Kumar Liberty, S/o Om Narayan Liberty Aged About 27 Years R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Village Development
Case Details
1 RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.04.04 19:19:52 +0530 2025:CGHC:13311 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1462 of 2025 1 - Deepak Kumar Liberty, S/o Om Narayan Liberty Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Nagoi (Dabhipara), Tahsil Beltara, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Village Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Near Dks Bhawan Old Mantralaya Road, Moti Bagh, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Cum District Returning Officer Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Returning Officer (Panchayat)/sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilha, Janpad Panchayat, Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Assistant Returning Officer (Panchayat) Tehsildar- Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Alka Jwala Suryawanshi R/o Mangla Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Budhnath Paigor R/o Village Nagoi, Tehsil Beltara, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Durga Kariyare R/o Urtun, Tehsil Beltara, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 9 - Kapil Nath Suryawanshi R/o Village Nagoi, Tehsil Beltara, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 10 - Kunti Meher D/o Neturam Meher R/o Village Nagoi, Tehsil Beltara, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 11 - Lok Prakash Diwakar R/o Village Nagoi, Tehsil Beltara, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General For Respondent No.2 ; Mr. Venkatesh Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel petitioner. Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondent/s as well as Mr. Venkatesh Pandey, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set aside the order dated 06.03.2025 ANNEXURE P/1 and direct the respondent no. 3 to correct the clerical/ mathematical error which they have committed in totaling of the casted votes of respondent no. 6&7 and directed to elect the petitioner because he has secured largest vote in between the other contested candidates in Janpad Panchayat elecrion at Janpad Panchayat Bilha. 3 ii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with costs of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is one of the participants of the Janpad Panchayat election for the post of member of the Janpad Panchayat Bilha, Election area No. 12. The election has taken place on 20.02.2025 and on the aforesaid date after the booth wise counting the returning officer has provided the booth wise result of the election and according to the booth wise casting vote of the petitioner, Budhnath Paigor and Smt. Alka Jwala Suryavanshi is as under :- Booth No. Deepak Kumar Liberty Budhnath Paigor Alka Jwala Suryavanshi 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 192 193 194 200 201 Total Votes declared by RO 74 89 38 88 80 53 66 42 41 18 49 170 135 165 43 224 210 1585 1585 157 80 160 78 42 33 170 164 97 182 81 63 101 43 20 33 49 1553 1668 74 21 41 19 33 43 56 17 62 34 131 43 13 59 135 85 21 887 772 4. Thereafter, the petitioner orally made several representations and 4 after getting the relevant booth wise casted votes and the petitioner has preferred the representation to the concerned Collector/District Returning Officer pointing out the mistake committed in the final calculation of the votes and its result. The petitioner may kindly be declared as a Return/Winning candidate. (ANNEXURE P/3). The petitioner has also given the reference of Rule 81, 84 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Election Rule 1995 along with the relevant documents and he also moved an application to provide the same under RTI Act, 2005, the petitioner’s application under RTI Act has been returned back vide order dated 04.03.2025. The petitioner has again filed an application for correction of the clerical/mathematical mistake on totaling of the each and every polling booth. When the respondents have not taken care of the representation of the petitioner then the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court
Decision
filing WPC 1218/2025, wherein the Hon'ble Court has disposed off the matter with direction to consider the application of the petitioner and pass necessary order in accordance of the rule 84 of the CG Panchayat Election Rule 1994 on or before 07.03.2025. The District Election Officer immediately after the order of Hon'ble High Court on the next day i.e. on 06.03.2024 without following the provision of rule 84 of the CG Panchayat Election rule has arbitrarily passed the impugned order and totally overlooked the booth wise casted votes and gave weightage to the wrongly 5 totaling caused by the Returning Officer without applying his mind by totaling of the booth wise casted votes and if the booth of casted votes has been calculated then the Budhram Paigor ought to be lost the election from the petitioner by a margin of 32 votes, so the order impugned is not at all sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents/State has opposed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that the instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 06/03/2025 passed by the District Election Officer, Bilaspur in compliance of the order dated 05/03/2025 passed by the Hon'ble Court in WPC No. 1218/2025 which is utterly misconceived and baseless. It is evident from the Writ Petition that the petitioner being aggrieved by the results of the Election held on 20/02/2025 for the post of Member, Janpad Panchayat, Bilha. In the present scenario the results have already been declared and the private respondent has been declared as elected. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to file an Election Petition under Section 122 of the Panchayatraj Adhiniyam, therefore, the instant petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on the basis of the following reasons : - “1. The article 243 ‘O’ is expressly clear that there can be no interference in electoral matters and the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file an Election Petition. 2. In a recent Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court "Dharnin Bai Vs. Bobli Sahu & Ors." the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Election Contest is not 6 an action at law or a suit in Equity but purely a statutory proceeding, provision for it has to be strictly construed. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also stressed that where a statutory remedy has been created by the statute which gives special remedy for enforcing, the said remedy must be availed. It is most respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme court has also applied the aforesaid principle in the matter of Panchayat Elections. 4. It is respectfully submitted that the order of Annexure P/1 has been duly passed in accordance with law and in terms of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 05/03/2025 in WPC No. 1218/2025. It is reiterated that the instant writ petition, where the principal grievance is the defeat of the petitioner in the Panchayat Elections, is not maintainable in its present form and the only remedy available is to file an Election Petition in accordance with the Section 122 of the Panchayat Adhiniyam. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on records. Since the results have already been declared and the member of the Janpad Panchayat Bilha, Election area No.12 and other members have already been elected, as such, the only remedy lies before the petitioner is to file an Election Petition under Section 122 of C.G Panchayat Rajya Adhiniyam, the relief as sought by the petitioner for recounting of the vote cannot be passed in such a situation. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sohan Lal vs. Babu Gandhi and others reported in (2003) 1 SCC 108, held in para 12 as under : “12. Thus after declaration of results, the Returning Officer has no power either to direct recount or to change the results of the election. Once the result is declared, the only remedy of an aggrieved party is an Election Petition under Section 122.” 7 8. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharmin Bai Kashyap vs Babli Sahu and Others reported in (2023) 10 SCC 461 decided on 16 August, 2023 held in paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 & 17 as under : "4. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties on the issue involved it would be apt to mention that as per Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) an election under the said Act could be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner, and in case of Panchayat to the Sub Divisional Officer (R), within 30 days from the date on which the election in question was notified. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 95 read with Section 43 of the said Act of the 1993 has framed the Rules called the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Nirvachan Niyam 1995). 5. Chapter IX of the said Nirvachan Niyam 1995 deals with “Poll and voting for election”. Sub rule (1) and sub rule (2) of Rule 77 thereof being relevant are reproduced here under: - 77. Counting of votes. – (1) Every ballot paper which is not rejected under rule 76 shall be counted: Provided that no cover containing tender ballot papers shall be opened and no such ballot paper shall be counted. (2) After the counting of votes in respect of a polling station has been completed, the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him, shall make the entries in result sheet in Form 16 for Panchas and in Part one of the result sheet in Form 17, 18 and 19 for sarpanch, members of Janpad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat respectively and announce the total number of votes polled by each candidate. 6. Rule 80 pertains to the recount of votes. The relevant sub-rule (1) and (2) thereof are reproduced hereunder: - 8 80. Recount of votes. – (1) After an announcement has been made by the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him, of the total number of votes polled by each candidate under sub-rule (2) of rule 77, a candidate or, in his absence, his election agent or his counting agent may apply in writing to the Returning Officer or such officer authorised by him, for a recount of all or any of the votes already counted, stating the grounds on which he demands such recount. (2) On such an application being made the Returning Officer or such other officer authorised by him shall decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part or may reject it in to if it appears to him to be frivolous or unreasonable. 7. It is pertinent to mention that the State Government has also framed the Rules of 1995, under the said Act of 1993. Rule 5 of the said Rules of 1995 pertains to the “Contents of the petition” and Rule 6 pertains to the “Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner”, which read as under: - 5. Contents of the petition. – An election petition shall (a) contain a concise statement of all material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) set forth with sufficient particulars, the grounds on which the election is called in question; (c) be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), for the verifications of pleadings. 6. Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner. - A petitioner may claim- (a) a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void; and (b) in addition, thereto, a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected. 13. It is well settled principle of law that where a right or a liability is created by a statue, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statue must be availed of. It is also well settled 9 salutary principle that if a Statue provides for doing a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. In Cherukuri Mani w/o Narendra Chowdari vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, it is observed that “where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure. 17. There is hardly any need to reiterate the trite position of law that when it comes to the interpretation of statutory provisions relating to election law, jurisprudence on the subject mandates strict construction of the provisions. Election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but purely a statutory proceeding, provision for which has to be strictly construed.” 9. Relying on the above judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and time and again also, Hon’ble the Supreme Court as well as this Court has passed orders stating that in election matters, once the result has been declared, the application of recounting of votes cannot be entertained, the remedy lies under Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 10. Considering the fact that alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to file an Election Petition under Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, the instant petition filed by the petitioner is found to be not maintainable and it deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. Ravi Mandavi Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge