1 2025:CGHC:28359 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3249 of 2025 1 - Smt. Janki Verma W/o Shri Jitendra Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Satbhanwa, Police Station- Tilda-Nevra, District Raipur (C.G) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Tilda, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Returning Officer Janpad Panchayat, Tilda- Nevra, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Tahsildar Tilda, Tahsil- Tilda- Nevra, District- Raipur (C.G.) 6 - The Presiding Officer Pooling Booth No. 115, Gram Panchayat Satbhanwa, Janpad Panchayat, Tilda- Nevra, District- Raipur (C.G.) 7 - The Presiding Officer Pooling Booth No. 116, Gram Panchayat Satbhanwa, Janpad Panchayat, Tilda- Nevra, District- Raipur (C.G.) 8 - The Presiding Officer Pooling Booth No. 117, Gram Panchayat Satbhanwa, Janpad Panchayat, Tilda- Nevra, District- Raipur (C.G.) 9 - Kiran Sandeep Verma W/o Sandeep Verma R/o Village- Khaprikhurd, Police Station- Tilda- Nevra, District- Raipur (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Akhand Pratap, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 27/06/2025 1. Counsel for the Petitioner prays for the following relief(s):- 2 “(I) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to case of petitioner and direct to recounting of votes of booth No. 117. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent authorities to conduct recounting and to take appropriate decision on the complaints and representation made by the petitioner (Annexure P/3). (iii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by learned SDO (Revenue). (v) Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as well as respondent no.9 were contested the election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Satbhanwa, Police Station-Tilda- Nevra, District Raipur (C.G.). The election was held on 20.02.2025 in three booths i.e. booth no 115, 116 & 117. After completion of election, the counting was done. The petitioner has secured total 257 votes in booth no. 115 and 209 votes in booth no. 116, whereas the respondent no. 9 has secured 30 votes in booth no. 115 and 17 votes in booth no. 116. The respondent authorities have not disclosed the votes casted in favour of petitioner in booth no. 117. It is submitted that the presiding officer of booth no. 117 has acted in an illegal manner by favouring the respondent no. 9 by not allowing the agents of petitioner at the time of counting of votes and the counting was done behind the back of petitioner and her agents, in an illegal and arbitrary manner. After counting, the respondent no. 9 has declared elected, whereas the respondent no.9 has secured total 47 votes in two booths, though the petitioner has secured total 466 votes in two booths. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that immediately after declaration of result, the petitioner has made the request of recounting but same has not been done without any reason complaints and representations before the respondent authorities against the aforesaid illegal manner adopted by the presiding officer of booth no. 117 and also made request for recounting of votes of booth no. 117, but till date the respondent authorities have not taken 3 any action on the complaints/representations of the petitioner, only to provide undue benefits to the respondent no.9. The petitioner previously approached this Hon'ble Court by filling a writ petition on 05.03.2025. By order dated 21.03.2025 the Hon'ble court was pleased to grant liberty to the petitioner to file an election petition in accordance with law, and consequently, the said writ petition was dismissed. In compliance with the liberty granted by the Hon'ble High Court, the petitioner filed an election petition before the Court of the Learned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Tilda-Nevra, District- Raipur, on 11.04.2025. However by order dated 30.04.2025, the Learned SDO (Revenue), Tilda-Nevra, dismissed the said election petition filed under section 122 of The Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, on the ground that it was not filed within the prescribed limitation period of 30 days. It is submitted that along with the election petition, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was also filed, which was subsequently dismissed without mentioning any reason. Therefore, he prays for remanding the matter back to consider his application which he filed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that an application at the belated stage cannot be entertained therefore the SDO (R ) has rightly passed the order dated 30.04.2025 which warrants no intereference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. On perusal of records, it transpires the fact that the petitioner as well as respondent no.9 were contested the election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Satbhanwa, Police Station-Tilda- Nevra, District Raipur (C.G.) The election was held on 20.02.2025. After declaration of result and being aggrieved of the result, the petitioner has made request for recounting of the election votes but same has not been done without any reason before the respondent authorities. Therefore, the petitioner has earlier approached the High Court by filing a writ petition i.e. WPC No. 1484/2025. By order dated 21.03.2025, this Court has passed the order by giving liberty 4 therein that the petitioner may file an election petition in accordance with law. In compliance of the liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner has filed the election petition on 11.04.2025 before the SDO Reveue along with an application Section 5 of Limitation Act 1963 which has been dismissed by the SDO(R ) on 30.04.2025 on the ground that the election petition was not filed within the prescribed limitation period of 30 days. 7. Section 122(2) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 provides that no such petition shall be admitted unless it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the election in question was notified. 8. Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act 1963 provides that Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. 9. In view of above Section, election was notified on 24.02.2025 and election petition was filed by the petitioner on 11.04.2025 and there is an exclusion clause under Section 122 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam because there is a statutory bar provided in admitting election petition beyond the period of 30 days from the date of notification, therefore provision of Section 5 of Limitation Act 1963 is not applicable in such proceedings. As such, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge