Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:47424 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4859 of 2025 Smt. Subhadra Isha Prakash Sahu W/o Shri Isha Prakash Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Danitola, Post- Mokha, Tahsil- Gurur, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Village Development Department, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order) VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.09.18 16:31:51 +0530 2 - The Election Officer Chhattisgarh Election Commission, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order) 3 - The Collector Balod, District Balod (C.G.) (Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order) 4 - The Presiding Offier/ Sub Divisional Officer (R) Janpad Panchayat, Gurur, District Balod (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
5 - Sunita Sanjay Sahu W/o Shri Sanjay Sahu Aged About 49 Years Resident Village Bharigaon, Post Fagundah, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate For the State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, PL For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Priyanshu Ojha, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 16.09.2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to call for records of case of the petitioner. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to remand the case to the respondent No.3 to decide the same after correction, framing issue and recording evidences of the parties, in accordance with law. 10.3 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the instant petition is being preferred against the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 – Collector, District Balod in Case No.202503241200007/2024-25, whereby an election petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent No.5 is dismissed on the ground of maintainability, without framing any issue, without recording any statement, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence, which is contrary to the settled law. He further contended that on 28.02.2025, notice was issued and fixed the date on 06.03.2025 for 3 held the election to the post of President and Vice President of Janpad Panchayat, Gurur, District Balod (C.G.). He further contended that on 18.03.2025, election petition has filed by the petitioner before respondent No.3 and the same was dismissed by order dasted 27.06.2025 vide Annexure P-1. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned State counsel contended that it may be directed to the petitioner to file a fresh election petition mentioning Section 122(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniya, 1993 instead of Section 121 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniya, 1993. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the election has been conducted as per rule and there is no violation of law and the petitioner filed this election petition before the authority without depositing the security money, therefore, the order has rightly been passed by the Additional Collector. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by counsel for the respective parties. On perusal of the order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P- 1), I have found that the Additional Collector has dismissed the election petition of the petitioner on the ground of the election program for the post of President of Janpad Panchayat Gurur has been completed on 06.03.2025 by the Presiding Officer -respondent no.1, which has been 4 challenged under Section 121 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, but there is no provision for filing of election petition under Section 121 of the Act, 1993. A person aggrieved by the result of the election, can question it only by filing a petition under Section 122(1) of the Act, 1993. The petitioner has not duly submitted the petition along with the election petition as per the rules. It is also observed that the petitioner has not paid security deposit on that ground the Additional Collector has rejected the election petition. 8. Further, it is crystal clear from the election petition that the petitioner has filed the election petition under Section 121 of the Act, 1993 instead of under Section 122(1) of the Act, 1993 which is a typographical error. Only on the basis of wrongly typed of the Section, the petition cannot be dismissed and the Additional Collector has duty bound to direct the petitioner to rectify the said error/mistake. 9. Rule 7 & 8 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 provides as under : “7. Deposit of security.- At the time of presentation of an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit with the specified officer a sum of Rs. Five Hundred as security. Where the election of more than one candidate is called in question, a separate deposit of an equivalent amount shall be required in respect of each such returned candidates.” “8. Procedure on receiving petition.- If provisions of rule 3 or rule 4 or rule 7 have not been complied with, the petition, shall 5 be dismissed by the specified officers; Provided that the petition shall not be dismissed under this rule without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.” 10. In this case, the Additional Collector has not provided opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before dismissing the petition, therefore, the order impugned passed by the Additional Collector, Balod is unsustainable in the eye of law. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of by observing that the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Collector, Balod (C.G.), whereby the Additional Collector dismissed the election petition filed the petitioner on account of the said election petition was filed under Section 121 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 instead of Section 122(1) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 is herby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Additional Collector, Balod (C.G.) for deciding the said election petition filed by the petitioner and passed the appropriate order after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with rules, regulations and law.
Decision
12. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Vasant Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge