Deepak Kumar Liberty v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by learned Single Judge in
Case Details
1 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.05.07 17:22:41 +0530 2025:CGHC:20843-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 299 of 2025 Deepak Kumar Liberty S/o Om Narayan Liberty Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Nagoi (Dabhipara), Tahsil Beltara, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) versus ... Appellant(s) 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) Tahsildar Bilha District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Alka Jwala Suryavanshi R/o Mangla Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Budhnath Paigor R/o Village Nagoi, Tahsil Beltara, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Durga Kariyare R/o Urtun, Tehsil Beltara, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 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.) 2 11 - Lok Prakash Diwakar R/o Village Nagoi, Tehsil Beltara, District Bilaspur (C.G.) For Appellant(s) For Respondent No.1/State For Respondent : : : No2 to 5 ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy G.A. Mr. Venkatesh Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 07.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Venkatesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 5. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 20.03.2025 (Deepak Kumar Liberty vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.1462 of 2025,
Decision
whereby the writ petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed by learned Single Judge as not maintainable. 3. The facts of the case according the appellant is that the appellant is only to consider the application and pass necessary order in 3 accordance with Rule 84 of the Panchayat Election Rule 1995 but the respondent No. 3 Collector cum District Returning Officer Bilaspur contrary to the provision of law did not look into the provision of Rule 84 of the Panchayat Election Rule 1995 and when the said impugned order has been challenged before the learned Single Judge, except the discussion of Section 84 of the Panchayat Election Rule in the order of learned Single Judge has discussed about the other issues and not at all discussed the core issue and closed the eyes, though from the naked eyes there is error in mathematical calculation on the basis of booth wise casted votes to the candidate No. 6 and 7 in spite of the fact that the aforesaid booth wise casted votes, the paper has been duly provided by the returning officer to the appellant and others, the booth wise casted votes result has been duly provided and from the bare perusal of the aforesaid booth wise casted votes to the respondents No. 6 and 7, there is mathematical error and the same can be corrected according to the provision of Section 84. So, the Court in earlier occasion passed an order on 05.03.2025 but in spite of the clear direction, the respondent Collector cum District Returning Officer, Bilaspur has not acted according to the provision of Rule 84 of the Panchayat Raj Act and passed the order and when the aforesaid order has been challenged before learned Single Judge, he has given the reference of the other provisions and from the order it reflects that he has under impression about the recount of the votes, though it is a case of 4 correction of the clerical, mathematical calculation as well as mistake, if any in the result of totaling of the votes. Though, the same can be corrected under the provision of Section 84 of Panchayat Election Rule 1995 but learned Single Judge gave the reference of the other provisions of Panchayat Election Rules as well as Panchayat Raj Act and passed the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed WPC No.1462 of 2025, whereby,the writ petition filed by the appellant herein / writ petitioner was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 20.03.2025. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court in the earlier petition clearly held that clerical and mathematical calculation errors in the booth-wise declared results of respondents No. 6 and 7 were apparent. However, the District Election Officer, Bilaspur, failed to examine the booth-wise results and passed an order without following the procedure outlined in Section 84 of the Panchayat Election Rules. Despite discussing Section 84, learned Single Judge did not direct the Collector cum District Returning Officer to correct the errors as mandated by the rule. This Court had directed the Collector cum District Returning Officer to pass necessary orders in accordance with Rule 84 of the Panchayat Election Rules, 1995. This rule empowers the Collector cum District Returning Officer to correct clerical and mathematical mistakes in booth-wise results. Given the existing order dated March 5, 2025, and the booth-wise casted vote 5 results provided by the Returning Officer, Panchayat, it is evident that there are mathematical/clerical errors. However, the Collector cum District Returning Officer and learned Single Judge overlooked these errors and the provisions of Rule 84. Instead, learned Single Judge held that the petitioner had an alternative remedy through an election petition under Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Act. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition stating that in election matters, once the result has been declared, the application of recounting of votes cannot be entertained and the remedy lies under Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Learned Single has observed that alternative remedy is available to the appellant to file an Election Petition under Section 122 of 6 the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and found the petition to be not maintainable. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as also with writ appeal and the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu