Chattisgarh High CourtAnnu Devi Anchal vs Smt Anupama Singh Tilakchadi Others on 1 November, 2012HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR          

 WRIT PETITION C NO 6560 OF 2011     

 Annu Devi Anchal 
                   ...Petitioner

          Versus

 Smt Anupama Singh Tilakchadi Others  
                                       ...Respondents

! Shri Sunil Otwani Advocate for the petitioner

^ Shri Prafull N Bharat Advocate for the respondent Shri P K Bhaduri Panel Lawyer for the State

 CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J 

 Dated: 01/11/2012

: Judgement 

                            ORDER(Passed on this 01st day of November, 2012)

  Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India1.   Challenge  in this petition is to the  order  dated

       06.09.2011 (Annexure P-1) and interim order dated 28.05.2010

       (Annexure P-2), passed by the Sub Divisional Officer,

       Bilaspur.2.   The  facts,  in brief, are that the petitioner  was

       elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dondki, Block & Tahsil

       Masturi, District Bilaspur. The election of the petitioner

       was challenged by the first respondent praying that the

       election petition of the first respondent be accepted and

       the Presiding Officer be directed to recount the votes

       polled in the election, in accordance with law. The election

       Tribunal without verifying the provisions of Rule 6 of

       Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practice

       and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short

       "the Rules, 1995"), admitted the petition and by impugned

       order declared the election of the petitioner as void and it

       was directed to handover the charge of Sarpanch to the first

       respondent.  Case of the petitioner is that the election

       petition has to be decided strictly in accordance with the

       provisions of law.3.   The  petition, challenging the election  of  office

       bearers, is maintainable only for two reliefs, as prescribed

       under Rule 6 of the Rules, 1995. The first respondent in her

       election petition has not sought for a declaration that the

       election of the petitioner be held as void and further

       declaration that she should be declared as elected.4.   The Tribunal without examining the provisions of law,

       particularly whether such election petition was admissible

       or not for hearing, passed the order declaring the election

       of the petitioner as void and further declaring the first

       respondent as elected Sarpanch.5.   Learned  counsel appearing for the first respondent

       submits that the procedure followed by the Tribunal cannot

       be flawed, as the Tribunal has already followed the

       procedure, as required under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995.6.   The question of law involved in the instant petition is

       whether an election petition seeking recounting of votes can

       be entertained and thereafter, considering the totality of

       the facts, the election of the petitioner be declared as

       void. Further, the first respondent be declared as elected.7.   The Rules, 1995 was framed in exercise of power under

       Section 95(1) read with sub section 1 & 3 of Section 122 of

       the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 in June 1995.  After

       bifurcation of the then State of Madhya Pradesh, the State

       of Chhattisgarh adapted the Rules, 1995.8.   Rule 3 provides for presentation of election petition

       that an election petition shall be presented to the

       specified Officer accompanied by as many copies thereof as

       there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every

       such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own

       signature to be a true copy of the petition.  Rule 4 deals

       with the parties to the petition. Rule 5 deals with the

       contents of the petition. Rule 6 provides for relief that

       may be claimed by the petitioner.  For convenience Rule 6 of

       the Rules, 1995 is reproduced as under :"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.9.   On bare perusal of the Rule 6 of Rules, 1995, it is

       evident that the election petition may be filed only for

       seeking a declaration that the election of all or any of the

       returned candidate is void; and in addition thereto, a

       further declaration that he himself or any other candidate

       has been duly elected, not for the counting of votes after

       election has been over. The petitioner has been declared as

       duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dondki, Block &

       Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur.10.  The election petition filed by the first respondent

       before the specified authority is annexed to this petition

       as Annexure P-4. The relief sought for by the petitioner is

       for recounting of votes polled in the election held on

       03.02.2010 and further, for a direction to hold the

       recounting in accordance with law. For ready reference, the

       prayer of the election petition is quoted below :_vr%   izkFkZuk  gS  fd  vH;FkhZ  }kjk
            izLrqr  vH;kosnu dks Lohdkj fd;k  tkdj
            xzke iapk;r MksMdh esa fnukad   03-02-
            2010  dks ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk  djk;s
            x;s  erx.kuk dks fujLr fd;k tkdj  iqu%
            fu;ekuqlkj  erx.kuk  djk;s   tkus   dk
            vkns'k ikfjr djus dh d`ik gksaa11.  Law is well settled that the success of a candidate who

       has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with

       and any petition seeking such interference must strictly

       confirmed to the requirements of the law (See: Ram Sukh v.Dinesh Aggarwal1).12.  Thus, admitting an election petition without complying

  with the statutory provisions and passing thereafter, an

       order declaring the election of the petitioner as void is

       erroneous and the same is unsustainable in law.13.  In view of foregoing, the final order dated 06.09.2011

       (Annexure P-1) wherein the interim order dated 28.05.2010

       (Annexure P-2) has merged, passed by the Sub Divisional

       Officer, Bilaspur, is quashed.14.  Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order

       asto costs.JUDGE