1 2025:CGHC:21629 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2411 of 2025 1 - Bhuneshwari Deshmukh W/o Sukhnandan Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Samoda, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Election Tribunal, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Returning Officer Panchayat (Janpad Panchayat, Durg), Gram Samoda, District Panchayat, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Arun Goutam S/o Late Milan Ram Goutam R/o Village- Samoda, Post- Karanja, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 5 - Bhuneshwari W/o Neeraj Nishad R/o Village- Samoda, Post- Karanja, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 6 - Sanjay Deshmukh S/o Tikam Ram Deshmukh R/o Village- Samoda, Post- Karanja, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/05/2025 1. The instant writ petition is being preferred against the impugned order dated 15.04.2025, passed in Revenue Case No. 202503100400249 under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (Annexure P/1), whereby the learned authority (Respondent No. 2) has Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 summarily dismissed the election petition without framing issues or recording evidence of the parties. The dismissal has been made solely on the ground that the election petition was not filed within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of rejection of the objection raised by petitioner by Respondent No. 3, i.e., 04.02.2025. Aggrieved by the said summary dismissal, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court by way of the present writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of the case from the respondent no. 2. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/ quashing the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to remand the Revenue Case No. 202503100400249 / Section-122 Election Petition / 2024-25 Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 before the respondent no. 2 for deciding the election petition filed by the petitioner on merits by framing the issues and recording evidence of the parties, in accordance with provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices & Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. 10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the present facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner is a citizen of India, and as such, is entitled to all the rights and privileges guaranteed under the Constitution of India, including the right to contest and participate in elections, and seek redressal for any grievances arising therefrom. On 13.03.2025, the petitioner filed an election petition before respondent No. 2, challenging the election process for the post 3 of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Samoda. The petitioner, along with respondents No. 4 to 6, had submitted their respective nomination papers to contest the said election. As per the election notification, the scrutiny of the nomination papers was scheduled for 04.02.2025. Respondent No. 4 had filed a false affidavit along with his nomination papers, while deliberately concealing the criminal cases pending against him in various Courts. In this regard, the husband of the petitioner filed an objection with respondent No. 3, requesting the rejection of the nomination paper of respondent No. 4. Along with the objection, the husband of petitioner submitted supporting documents, including records of criminal history of respondent No. 4. However, respondent No. 3, without duly considering the objection and supporting materials, passed an order on 04.02.2025 rejecting the objection. The election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Samoda, was held on 17.02.2025, and the result was declared on 18.02.2025, the respondent No. 4 was declared elected as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Samoda. The election was held on 17.02.2025 and the result was declared on 18.02.2025 were vitiated and rendered null and void due to the filing of the false affidavit by respondent No. 4. In light of this, the petitioner filed an election petition seeking the declaration of the election of respondent No. 4 as null and void, and further prayed for the declaration of the petitioner as the duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Samoda. Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order on 15.04.2025 without framing any issues or recording the evidence of the parties involved,. In the said order, respondent No. 2 summarily dismissed the election petition on the ground that the petitioner had failed to file the election petition within 4 the prescribed limitation period of 30 days, which, according to respondent No. 2, began from the date of rejection of the objection raised by petitioner by respondent No. 3, i.e., from 04.02.2025. Election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Samoda, was held on 17.02.2025, and the result was declared on 18.02.2025. Consequently, the petitioner filed the election petition on 13.03.2025, which was within 30 days from the date of declaration of the election result, and thus, within the prescribed limitation period. However, respondent No. 2, in the impugned order, has erroneously considered the date of rejection of the objection (i.e., 04.02.2025) as the starting point for calculating the limitation period, which is not in accordance with the law. This misapplication of the limitation period is a clear error of law and a grave injustice to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the election petition filed by the petitioner has been erroneously dismissed on the ground of limitation. The said order is perverse, contrary to law, and deserves to be quashed. The election to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Samoda was held on 17.02.2025 and the result thereof was declared on 18.02.2025. The petitioner, aggrieved by the conduct and outcome of the said election, preferred an election petition on 13.03.2025, well within the statutory period of thirty (30) days as prescribed under the relevant rules. Thus, there is no question of delay or limitation in filing the said petition. However, respondent No. 2 has rejected the said election petition solely on the ground that the period of limitation must 5 be computed not from the date of declaration of election result (i.e., 18.02.2025) but from the date of rejection of some prior objection raised by the petitioner during the election process. This approach is not sanctioned by law. The law is well settled that limitation for an election petition commences from the date of declaration of result, and not from any earlier stage or order passed during the election process. Even assuming (without conceding) that there existed some ambiguity regarding the starting point of limitation, the question of limitation in election matters is a mixed question of law and fact, and cannot be summarily adjudicated at the threshold stage. The impugned order, which dismissed the petition at the preliminary stage without framing issues and without taking evidence, is thus clearly unsustainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the jugement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Makhan Lal Bangal vs. Manas Bhunia & Others, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 652. The present case falls squarely within the ambit of this decision, and the failure of respondent No. 2 to follow the procedure mandated by law renders the impugned order unsustainable in the eyes of law. Furthermore, the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices & Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, framed under Section 95(1) read with Section 122(1) & (3) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, clearly lays down the procedure for trial of election petitions. These procedural safeguards are not mere formalities, but are essential to ensure that justice is done in a fair and transparent manner. Bypassing this procedure by dismissing the petition at the threshold violates both the letter and spirit of these Rules. The conduct of the election, including allegations of irregularity or illegality, cannot 6 be adjudicated in a summary manner, and certainly not without granting the petitioner an opportunity to prove his case through evidence. The summary rejection of the petition on a legally untenable interpretation of limitation rules amounts to denial of justice. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2, direct the respondent No. 2 to hear and decide the election petition filed by the petitioner on merits in accordance with law and procedure. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the dismissal of election petition was primarily on the ground that the election petition was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days from the date of rejection of the objection raised by the petitioner before respondent No. 3, i.e., 04.02.2025. The petitioner has contended that the election petition was filed within 30 days from the date of declaration of the election result (i.e., 18.02.2025), however, the submission of learned counsel for petitioner fails to address the fundamental issue that the rejection of the objection raised by the petitioner on 04.02.2025 is the correct starting point for calculating the limitation period for filing the election petition, as prescribed by the law. The learned authority, respondent No. 2, rightly considered the rejection of the objection as the trigger for the limitation period, as this was the last order affecting the substantive rights of petitioner in the election process. Therefore, the filing of the election petition on 13.03.2025 is clearly beyond the statutory time limit, and no fault can be attributed to respondent No. 2 for dismissing the petition on this ground. The petitioner has erroneously relied upon 7 the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Makhan Lal Bangal (Supra) which pertains to the framing of issues and recording of evidence in an election trial. However, this judgment is irrelevant to the present case. The issue at hand is not about the trial procedure or the recording of evidence, but about the correct calculation of the limitation period for filing an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner based on above judgement does not alter the well-established principle that the limitation period for filing an election petition begins from the date when the objection raised by the petitioner is disposed of. The attempt of petitioner to argue that the limitation should be counted from the date of declaration of the election result is a misreading of the law. The Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices & Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, which the petitioner relies upon, provides the procedure for filing election petitions, including the limitations for filing such petitions. Rule 11(1) of the Rules clearly stipulates that every election petition shall be enquired into by the specified officer, and the procedure for such inquiry must align with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the issue at hand is not whether the procedure under the Civil Procedure Code has been followed, but whether the election petition was filed within the prescribed time. The rejection of the objection raised by petitioner on 04.02.2025 was the last procedural action impacting the election process, and therefore, the limitation period began from that date. The reliance of petitioner on the argument that the dismissal of the election petition at the threshold stage, without framing issues or recording 8 evidence, is erroneous, is also misplaced. The authority, respondent No. 2, did not err in dismissing the petition at the preliminary stage, as the question of limitation is a pure question of law and does not require the framing of issues or the recording of evidence. The election petition was clearly filed beyond the limitation period, and as such, respondent No. 2 was within its jurisdiction to dismiss the petition on this ground. It is further submitted that the election petition filed by petitioner was not only time-barred but also lacked merit, as the petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims of irregularities in the election process. The objection regarding the false affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 was rejected by respondent No. 3, and no sufficient grounds have been shown to warrant any further action. The mere fact that the petitioner did not agree with the rejection of the objection does not provide a valid reason for an election petition to be filed after the expiration of the statutory period. The contentions raised by petitioner regarding the misapplication of the limitation period are, therefore, unfounded. The authority rightly applied the law, and the dismissal of the election petition on the grounds of limitation is entirely in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and its associated rules. In light of the above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the present writ petition as being without merit and based on an incorrect interpretation of the law and uphold the impugned order dated 15.04.2025, passed by respondent No. 2, which rightly dismissed the election petition on the ground of limitation. 9 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record annexed along with the writ petition with atmost circumspection. 6. The main issue before this Court is whether the limitation for filing the election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, commences from the date of rejection of the objection raised by the petitioner (04.02.2025), as held by Respondent No. 2, or from the date of declaration of the election result (18.02.2025). The second issue concerns whether the election petition can be summarily dismissed at the preliminary stage without framing issues and recording evidence. 7. The Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices & Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, framed under Section 95(1) read with sub-sections (1) & (3) of Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, lay down the procedure to be followed in election petitions. In particular, Rule 11 and Rule 12 are relevant, which are reproduced below: : "Rule 11. Procedure before the specified officer and his powers - (1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shall be enquried into by the specified officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits : Provided that it shall only be necessary for the specified officer to make a memorandum of the substance of the evidence of any witness examined by him. Rule 12. Parties to produce their witnesses - It shall be the duty of the parties to produce their 10 witnesses on the date fixed for evidence, and they shall not be entitled to an adjournment for non- attendance of their witnesses: Provided that the specified officer may, at his discretion, order the issue of summons to any witness on the necessary process fee and costs being deposited by the party concerned." 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Makhan Lal Bangal (Supra) has laid down that an election petition is to be treated like a civil trial, requiring the framing of issues and the recording of evidence. The trial of an election petition must proceed in a manner similar to that of a civil suit, where the issues are framed, evidence is led, and the merits of the petition are examined. The summary dismissal of the petition at the preliminary stage, without framing issues or recording evidence, is contrary to the established legal procedure. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference :- “19. An election petition is like a civil trial. The stage of framing the issues is an important one inasmuch as on that day the scope of the trial is determined by laying the path on which the trial shall proceed excluding diversions and departures therefrom. The date fixed for settlement of issues is, therefore, a date fixed for hearing. The real dispute between the parties is determined, the area of conflict is narrowed and the concave mirror held by the court reflecting the pleadings of the parties pinpoints into issues, the disputes on which the two sides differ. The correct decision of civil lis largely depends on correct framing of issues, correctly determining the real points in controversy which need to be decided. The scheme of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with settlement of issues shows that an issue arises when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Each material proposition 11 affirmed by one party and denied by other should form the subject of a distinct issue. An obligation is cast on the court to read the plaint/petition and the written statement/counter, if any, and then determine with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, the material propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are at variance. The issues shall be framed and recorded on which the decision of the case shall depend. The parties and their counsel are bound to assist the court in the process of framing of issues. Duty of the counsel does not belittle the primary obligation cast on the court. It is for the Presiding Judge to exert himself so as to frame sufficiently expressive issues. An omission to frame proper issues may be a ground for remanding the case for retrial subject to prejudice having been shown to have resulted by the omission. The petition may be disposed of at the first hearing if it appears that the parties are not at issue on any material question of law or of fact and the court may at once pronounce the judgment. If the parties are at issue on some questions of law or of fact, the suit or petition shall be fixed for trial calling upon the parties to adduce evidence on issues of fact. The evidence shall be confined to issues and the pleadings. No evidence on controversies not covered by issues and the pleadings, shall normally be admitted, for each party leads evidence in support of issues the burden of proving which lies on him. The object of an issue is to tie down the evidence and arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The judgment, then proceeding issue-wise would be able to tell precisely how the dispute was decided.” 9. The High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Shahnawaz Ali vs. Election Tribunal District Judge Muzaffarnagar and Others has held that the election petition filed by respondent therein was within the statutory limitation period of 30 days as prescribed under Section 20 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. The Court emphasized that election laws, particularly those concerning limitation, must be interpreted 12 strictly. However, it found no delay or procedural lapse significant enough to invalidate the petition. Relevant paragraph of the said judgement is quoted below for ready reference : “10. As per Section 20, as mentioned above, election petition should be presented within 30 days after the date of which the result of election sought to be questioned is announced by the returning officer. I am convinced with the submissions as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that election law should be interpreted strictly, particularly, with regard to the prescribed period of limitation for the purposes of entertaining the election petition inasmuch as there is no provision qua applicability of the Limitation Act, except Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act as enunciated under proviso to Section 23 of the Act, 1916. Therefore, the phrase “within 30 days” is relevant which starts from the date when result is announced by the returning officer. It is admitted to both the parties, and also a matter of record, that result of election for the post of President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli was declared on 13-5- 2023, therefore, limitation for filing the election petition available to Respondent 2 was up to 12-6- 2023. However, intending to avoid any delay, Respondent 2 has filed the election petition on 9- 6-2023. Owing to summer vacations in the month of June, Respondent 2 has presented the election petition along with an application under Rule 13 of the Rules, 1957 for obtaining permission to file the election petition during vacation period. The Election Tribunal, owing to oppose made on behalf of the returned candidate, has rejected the application to leave for filing the election petition. Thereafter, second attempt was made by Respondent 2 on 1-7-2023, however, again permission has not been granted for want of presence of the petitioner and, ultimately, vide order impugned dated 3-7-2023, election petition was admitted and ordered to be registered. 13. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has attempted to present the election petition within 30 days of declaration of election result, however, 13 same has been got registered on 4-7-2023 in pursuance of the order impugned dated 3-7-2023. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sumitra Devi v. Special Judge/Additional District and Sessions Judge1. In the cited judgment, provisions to file election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (in brevity “Act, 1947”) has been examined by the Full Bench of this Court with respect to the question referred before him, which are quoted hereinbelow: “1. Whether presentation of an election petition by the election petitioner personally is a mandatory requirement in view of sub-section (3) of Section 12 C(1) of the Act, 1947 and Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1994 and whether it's non-compliance is fatal or it would merely be an improper presentation, a curable defect? 2. Whether the decision of the Single Judge Bench of this Court in Viresh Kumar Tiwari case11 lays down the law correctly with regard to the question framed at Serial No. 1 or it is the Division Bench judgment in the case Lal Bahadur Singh case12 and the subsequent Single Bench judgment in Urmila case13 which lay down the law correctly? 21. In this conspectus, as above, in my considered opinion, Respondent 2 has presented election petition well within the prescribed period of limitation as enunciated under Section 20 of the Act, 1916. There is no apparent delay in filing the election petition to annul the same under Section 22 of Act, 1916 which denotes that not complying the provisions under Section 20 of the Act, 1916 would be resulted into rejection of election petition. Finding returned by learned Election Tribunal has not specifically been denied in the writ petition. Remaining point advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is still open to be raised before the Election Tribunal. There is no justifiable ground to entertain the instant writ petition and interfere in the order impugned dated 3-7-2023 passed by learned District Judge (Election Tribunal), which is hereby affirmed. There is no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the order under challenge so as to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of 14 its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate as to how the present petitioner is prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, owing to the order under challenge.” 10. Upon careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel, as well as the relevant provisions of law, this Court is of the opinion that the law clearly mandates that the limitation period for filing an election petition begins from the date of declaration of the election result, as per Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices & Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. The rejection of the objection raised by the petitioner is an intermediate step in the election process and does not affect the start of the limitation period for filing an election petition. The statutory time limit of 30 days for filing the petition must therefore be calculated from the date of declaration of the election result (18.02.2025), and not from the date of rejection of the objection (04.02.2025). This Court, therefore, finds that the dismissal of the petition by respondent No. 2 at the threshold, based solely on an erroneous interpretation of the limitation period, is unsustainable. In light of the above findings, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 15.04.2025, passed by respondent No. 2, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. The petitioner is entitled to a fair adjudication of their election petition on merits, and Respondent No. 2 must follow the due process of law, including framing issues and recording evidence. The dismissal of the petition on the ground of limitation, based on an incorrect interpretation of the law, was erroneous 15 11. The impugned order dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to respondent No. 2 for a fresh consideration of the election petition filed by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 is directed to frame issues and proceed with the trial in accordance with the law as also with the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices & Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. 12. The concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (R) - respondent No. 2, the Election Tribunal is directed to rehear the matter, while issuing notice to the respondents and to complete the trial in accordance with the law within some stipulated period. 13. Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction and observation, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE