Nafr High Court
Case Details
ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 1 2025:CGHC:46416-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 669 of 2025 Girish Kumar Gupta S/o Late Balbhadra Prasad Gupta, aged about 62 years R/o Village And P.O. Salka (Aghina) Tahsil Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) versus ... Appellant 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat Department Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Election Commission Through- The Chief Election Commissioner Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director Panchayat Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Collector- Cum District Election Officer Surajpur District- Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Surajpur District Surajpur (C.G.) 6 - Tahsildar-Cum Returning Officer (Panchayat) Janpad Panchayat Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) 7 - Anju Kumar Rajwade S/o Sukhlal Rajwade Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Antorwa P.O. Chandramedha Tahsil Bhaiyathan District Surajpur (C.G.) At Present R/o Bhatgaon Near Sai Mandir Tahsil Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) 8 - Arvind Sharan Singh S/o Late Mohan Rajwade Aged About 56 Years R/o Village And P.O. Chandramedha Tahsil Bhatgaon, Block- Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) 9 - Hariram Rajwade S/o Mohan Rajwade Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Laxmipur, P.O. Batra Tahsil Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) 10 - Lal Baran Painkra S/o Dashraj Painkra Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Sonpur, P.O. Batra, Tahsil Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) 2 11 - Mohitram Rajwade S/o Raghuwar Ram Rajwade Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Karkoli Naya P.O. Chungadi Tahsil Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) 12 - Rajendra Pratap Singh S/o Late Hublal Singh Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Kaskela P.O. Salka (Aghina) Tahsil Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G) 13 - Ramtahal Meta Ji S/o Jailal Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Batra Tahsil Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) 14 - Ramesh Kumar Gupta S/o Manik Chand Gupta Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Bundia, P.O. Bhatgaon Tahsil Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) 15 - Ramnarayan Patile S/o Late Shivram Patile Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Anrokha, P.O. Bhatgaon Tahsil Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) 16 - Rupesh Kumar Gupta S/o Rang Mahal Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Baijnathpur P.O. Salka Tahsil Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) 17 - Subhash Rajwade S/o Late Hausla Rajwade Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Batra, P.O. Batra Tahsil Bhaiyathan District- Surajpur (C.G.) 18 - Surya Pratap Singh S/o Mukutdhari Singh Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Chendra, P.O, Dawna, Block- Odgi, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 19 - Tarachand Gupta S/o Late Bhagwan Sao Aged About 68 Years R/o Village And P.O. Salka, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Appellant For Respondents/State For Respondent No.2 : : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Adv. General Mr. Venkatesh Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Chief Justice , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11 .0 9 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General 3 for the State/respondents and Mr. Venkatesh Pandey holding brief of Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2. 2. This is an intra-Court appeal filed against the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 2645 of 2025 (Girish Kumar Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) by which the learned Single Judge has
Decision
dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the appellant as well as respondent No. 7 to 19 had submitted their nomination forms for the post of member of Jila Panchayat for Constituency No.8 of District Surajpur and the election was held on 17.02.2025 whereby the respondent No.7 has been elected. Against which the petitioner has filed Election Petition before respondent No.3- Director Panchayat, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur CG for recounting of the votes on 19.03.2025 and the said Election Petition was rejected vide impugned order dated 09.04.2025, operative portion of the said order reads as under :- ( **mifu;e (4) ;k fu;e 77 ds mifu;e (2) ds v/khu izR;sd vH;FkhZ dks ernku esa feys erksa dh dqy la[;k ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ds I’pkr~ iquxZ.kuk ds fy, dksbZ vkosnu xzg.k ugha fd;k tk,xk% izLrqr fuokZpu ;kfpdk esa ;kfpdkdrkZ us tks vuqrks"k dh vis{kk fd;k gS] og erksa dh x.kuk] iquxZ.kuk ls lacaf/kr gSA 4 vr% Nrrhlx< iapk;r (fuokZpu vftZ;ksa] Hkz"Vkpkj vkSj lnL;ksa ds fy, fujgZrk) fu;e] 1995 ds fu;e 06 ds rgr fuokZpu ;kfpdk erksa dh x.kuk] iquxZ.kuk ls lacaf/kr gksus ds dkj.k izLrqr ;kfpdk vLohdkj djus ;ksX; gS] vr% ;kfpdk vekU; fd;k tkrk gS A** 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein had filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as WPC No. 2645 of 2025 and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 27.06.2025. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner vehemently argued that the learned Election Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have utterly failed to appreciate the provision and procedure for entertaining and adjudication of the Election Petition, meaning thereby the Election Petition cannot be thrown at the motion stage and it is obligatory for the Election Tribunal to formulate the issues and full fledged trial ought to have been conducted, but on some synthetic ground the Election Petition has been dismissed. He further submitted that Election Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge has referred the C.G. Panchayat Election Rules (Rule 7) which provides that after the declaration of the total numbers of the votes, no application for recounting of the votes can be entertained. This rule has been referred in the impugned orders itself. In this regard, it is humbly submitted that the sub-rule 4 or Rule 2 of Rule 77 does not apply to the case of the appellant because the rule is applicable to the stage prior to filing of the Election Petition. It denotes that when the election is 5 over and the counting has been finished, then all the officers become functus officio and they cannot entertain any application for recounting of the votes or to verify or scrutinize the nomination forms etc and only remedy lies with the aggrieved person or candidate is to approach the Election Tribunal by the way of filing the Election Petition. He also submits that the C.G. Panchayat Election Rules will not be applicable in the instant case, but the Election Petition Rules, 1960 will be applicable, and Rule 21 of which provides for filing of Election Petition for recounting of the votes after election. In support of of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Vijay Bahadur Vs. Sunil Kumar and Others, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 180 and Mohit Kumar Vs. Kuldeep Singh and others [Civil Appeal No. 10487 of 2025 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18410 of 2025) dated 11.08.2025]. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Venketesh Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2 opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that for recounting of the votes, an application has to be submitted before the Returning Officer and if he satisfied with the same, then after recording his satisfaction, then only recounting would be permissible and in the instant case, no such application for recounting has been given by the appellant / writ petitioner, therefore, recounting could not be permissible. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the Election Tribunal, 6 while rejecting the Election Petition, referred sub-rule (4) or sub- rule (2) of Rule 77 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, which provides that when the election is over and the counting has been finished, then all the officers become functus officio and they cannot entertain any application for recounting of the votes or to verify or scrutinize the nomination forms etc and the learned Single Judge has also quoted the said finding recorded by the Election Tribunal, while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, but, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that the said Rule does not apply to the case of the appellant because the rule is applicable to the stage prior to filing of the Election Petition and only remedy lies with the aggrieved person or candidate is to approach the Election Tribunal by the way of filing the Election Petition. 9. Though the case laws cited by learned counsel for the appellant in the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Vijay Bahadur (supra) and Mohit Kumar (supra) are distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the present case, but considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the observations made by the learned Single Judge as well as the Election Tribunal, are patently illegal and not in accordance with law, as such, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge as well as the Election Tribunal have 7 committed grave illegality in passing the impugned orders, which deserve to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2645 of 2025 as well as order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Election Tribunal are hereby set aside. Election Petition filed by the appellant is restored to its original number. 11. The matter is remanded back to the Election Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Election Tribunal is directed to consider the Election Petition filed by appellant on its merit and shall pass the order afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra