1 2025:CGHC:32898 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3648 of 2025 1 - Anjor Singh S/o Late Shri Morit Ram Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Sukhari Kala, Tahsil- Barpali, Distt- Korba C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat Department And Of Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt- Raipur C.G. 2 - Director Panchayat, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt- Raipur C.G. 3 - Collector, Korba, Distt Korba C.G. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Korba, Distt Korba C.G. 5 - Pyari Lal Rathiya S/o Dhajaram Rathiya Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Chirra, Tahsil And District Korba, Head Master And District Korba, Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Madanpur, Tahsil And District Korba C.G. (Assistant Returning Office In Panchayat Election) 6 - Khelan Ram Nagarachi S/o Lachchi Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Sukhari Kala, Tahsil- Barpali, Distt- Korba C.G. ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 15/07/2025 1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 whereby the respondent No. 4 has rejected the preliminary objection and has also rejected the prayer of the petitioner for cross-examination of respondent No. 5 Pyari Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.07.17 11:09:28 +0530 2 Lal Rathiya and has posted the matter for final hearing on 23.07.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 6 has filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 alleging that the petitioner has been elected as Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Sukhari Kala by difference of one vote only because of erroneous counting of votes by respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 4 has proceeded with calling the reply of the returning officer i.e. respondent No. 5 on which the respondent No. 5 submitted his reply on affidavit admitting the allegation of the respondent No. 6. On 14.05.2025 the respondent No. 5 appeared in person and reiterated his affidavit. On the next date of hearing on 21.05.2025 the petitioner made an application for cross examination of respondent No. 5. On 04.06.2025 the respondent No. 6 submitted its reply to the application for cross examination on which the respondent No. 4 ordered that on 14.05.2025 opportunity to cross examine of respondent No. 5 was given to the petitioner but as his counsel was not available so cross examination cannot be conducted and then on 18.06.2025 cross examination was fixed mentioning it as final opportunity. On 18.06.2025 the petitioner filed an application for dismissal of the election petition and date was then fixed for arguments on it finally on 02.07.2025, preliminary objection was rejected on the same day, the petitioner prayed for opportunity to cross examination of respondent No. 5 which was rejected mentioning that enough opportunities have been given to the petitioner and the case was close for final arguments. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Specified Officer can examine the witnesses on oath and on affidavit. The right of cross examination is inherent in the power of examination by the specified officer. It would be violation of 3 natural justice if right of cross examination of witnesses called or produced is taken away. From the order sheets, it is very much clear that the petitioner has never delayed the cross- examination of respondent No. 5, Therefore he prays for a last opportunity to cross examination of respondent No. 5. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that enough opportunities have been granted to the petitioner to cross-examination of respondent No. 5. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the submission of the respondents and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondent No. 4 to summon the respondent No. 5 Pyari Lal Rathiya for cross- examination and the respondent No. 4 shall afford opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent No. 5. As such, the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the respondent No. 4 is hereby set aside. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti