Annu Devi Anchal vs Smt Anupama Singh Tilakchadi Others

Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Rules, 1995 was framed in exercise of power u/s 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.

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 :

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.

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.

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 :

(Vernacular matter deleted)

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).

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.

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. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.