Anupam Agrawal S/o Shri Anil Kumar Agrawal Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:46731 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4872 of 2025 Anupam Agrawal S/o Shri Anil Kumar Agrawal Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Village Kuthroud, Post- Hirmi, Block- Simga, Tahsil- Suhela, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. Mo. No. 9926126868. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur, Police Station- Rakhi, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. 2 - Director Panchayat, Sector-19, North Block, Vikas Bhawan, Ground Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. 3 - Dr. Mohan Lal Verma S/o Late Baliram Verma (Elected Zila Panchayat Member Area No. 3), R/o Ward No. 14, Village Kuthroud, Post- Hirmi, Block- Simga, Tahsil- Suhela, District- C.G. Balodabazar-Bhatapara 4 - R.K. Bharti, (Candidate Zila Panchayat Member Area No. 3), R/o Ward No. 4 Village Budgahan, Post- Bhatbhera, Block- Simga, Balodabazar-Bhathapara C.G. Tahsil- Supela, District-
Legal Reasoning
5 - Chandrahas Tandon S/o Shri Goutam Prasad Tandon (Candidate Zila Panchayat Member Area No. 3), R/o Ward No. 5 Village Budgahan, Post- Bhatbhera, Block- Simga, Tahsil- Supela, District- Balodabazar-Bhathapara C.G. 6 - Gopal Yadu (Candidate Zila Panchayat Member Area No. 3), R/o Ward No. 7 Village And Post Rawan, Block- Simga, Tahsil- Supela, District- Balodabazar-Bhathapara C.G. 2 7 - Gopichand Sahu (Candidate Zila Panchayat Member Area No. 3), R/o Ward No. 10 Village Khilora, Tahsil- Supela, District- Balodabazar-Bhathapara C.G. 8 - Khilendra Kumar Verma (Candidate Zila Panchayat Member Area No. 3), R/o Ward No. 1 Village Khapradih, Post Rawan, Block- Simga, Tahsil- Supela, District- Balodabazar-Bhathapara C.G. 9 - Rajesh Verma (Candidate Zila Panchayat Member Area No. 3), R/o Ward No. 3 Village And Post Mohra, Block- Simga, Tahsil- Supela, District- Balodabazar-Bhathapara C.G. 10 - Santosh Kumar Markandey (Candidate Zila Panchayat Member Area No. 3), R/o Ward No. 2 Village Funderdehi, Post- Newari, Tahsil- Palari, District- Balodabazar-Bhathapara C.G. 11 - Timir Upadhyay (Candidate Zila Panchayat Member Area No. 3), R/o Ward No. 8 Village And Post Hirmi, Block- Simga, Tahsil- Supela, District- Balodabazar-Bhathapara C.G. 12 - Election Officer Zila Panchayat Balodabazar, District Election Office, Collectorate Compound Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara C.G. ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner For Respondent-State ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate. : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA. Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 12.09.2025 1. 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 pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to set-aside the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by respondent no.2 in case no.16/न्या(cid:3).सं(cid:5)चा(cid:3).पं(cid:5)चा(cid:3)/2025 between "Anupam Agrawal Vs. Dr. Mohan Lal Verma & 3 others" (Annexure-P/1) and further be please to direct to the respondent no. 2 to conclude the election petition preferred by the petitioner within 03 months, is in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that respondent nos.3 to 11 were the candidates of the election of Area No.3 for member of the Zila Panchayat Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhathapara (C.G.). The petitioner was allotted election mark as ‘Do Pattil’, whereas respondent no.3 was allotted the election mark as "Electric Bulb". Learned Counsel further contended that respondent no.3 publicized himself as ‘doctor’ and also mentioned the doctor with his name in the banner, poster, calendar, fake ballet paper etc., during the election campaigning. After election, petitioner preferred the election petition under Section 122(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 (for, short’ Adhiniyam 1993’), which was dismissed on 30.07.2025 by respondent no.2/Director Panchayat at admission stage without giving any opportunity of the hearing to the petitioner, which is contrary provisions of Adhiniyam 1993 and the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, (for short, ‘Rules of 1995). Hence, petitioner has came-up before this Court with aforesaid reliefs. 4 3. Learned State Counsel contended that after consider all the aspects of the case, respondent-authority concerned has rightly dismissed the election petition of the petitioner, in which, there is no need to interference by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition including the order dated 30.7.2025. 5. For ready reference, Section 122 of the Adhiniyam 1993 reads as under: “122. Election petition. (1). An election under this Act shall be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner:- (i) in case of Panchayat to the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue); (ii) in case of Janpad Panchayat to the Collector; and (iii) in case of Zila Panchayat to [Director, Panchayat] [Substituted by C.G. Act No. 8 of 2003.] and not otherwise. (2) No such petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the election in question was notified.
Decision
(3) Such petition shall be enquired into or disposed of according to such procedures as may be prescribed. 6. Rule 8 & 11 of the Rules of 1995 reads as under: “8. Procedure on receiving petition. - If the provisions of Rule 3 or Rule 4 or Rule 7 have not been 5 complied with, the petition, shall 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. Rule 11.Procedure before the specified officer and his powers. (1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shall be enquired into by the specified officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits : Provided that it shall have only be necessary for the specified officer to make a memorandum of the substance of the evidence of any witness examined by him. (2) The specified officer, shall have the powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. when trying a suit in respect of the following matters :- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses, and requiring the deposit of their expenses; (c) compelling the production of document; (d) examination of witnesses on oath; (e) reception of evidence taken on affidavit; and (f) issuing commission for examination of witnesses and summoning and examining suo motu any person whose evidence, appears to him to be material.” 6 7. Perusal of impugned order Annexure P-1 shows that election petition of petitioner has been dismissed on 30.07.2025 by respondent No.2/Director Panchayat without framing the issues, without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other parties or without examining the witnesses, which is contrary to the provisions of Adhiniyam 1993 and Rules of the 1995, therefore, impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set- aside. 8. For the foregoing reasons/discussion, impugned order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) is hereby set-aside. Matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 for fresh adjudication of the election petition of the petitioner, expeditiously, in accordance with relevant rules/law/regulation after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as private respondent Nos.3 to 11. CC as per rules. Sd/- J/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge