1 / 6 2025:CGHC:35769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3870 of 2025 Doctor Prasad S/o Biniram Aged About 52 Years Caste- Kanwar Occupation - Agriculture R/o Village- Jamchunwa Village- Panchayat- Jivari Tahsil- Tamnar District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Election Officer, Tahsil Tamnar District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/election Tribunal Gharghoda District- Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Mangali Rathiya W/o Balram Rathiya Aged About 27 Years Caste- Kanwar, Occupation - Agriculture R/o Village- Jivari Village Panchayat- Jivari, Tahsil Tamnar District- Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Jagmohan S/o Mangalu Ram Aged About 28 Years Caste- Kanwar, Occupation - Agriculture R/o Village- Jamchunwa Village Panchayat - Jivari, Tahsil - Tamnar District- Raigarh (C.G.) 6 - Nuratan S/o Jhaduram Aged About 49 Years Caste- Bhaina, Occupation - Agriculture R/o Village- Jivari Village Panchayat- Jivari, Tahsil - Tamnar District- Raigarh (C.G.) 7 - Tarachand S/o Ramprasad Aged About 36 Years Caste- Kanwar, Occupation - Agriculture R/o Village- Jamchunwa Village Panchayat- Jivari, Tahsil Tamnar District- Raigarh (C.G.) 8 - Bhoj Kumar S/o Doctor Prasad Aged About 28 Years Caste- Kanwar, Occupation - Agriculture R/o Village- Jamchunwa Village Panchayat- Jivari, Tahsil Tamnar District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 24/07/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.07.24 14:44:39 +0530 2 / 6 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is calling under question the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 09/07/2025 & 15/07/2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer/Election Tribunal Gharghoda, District-Raigarh, C.G., whereby the said authority has directed for recounting of the votes in election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jivari, Tahsil- Tamnar, District Raigarh, C.G. 2. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the declaration of panchayat election for the post of Panch, Sarpanch, Member of Block Development Council and Member of District Development Council by the Chhattisgarh Election Commission in all over the State of Chhattisgarh the election was held on 23/02/2025 and counting was done on 25/02/2025. Post of Sarpanch for the Gram Panchayat Jivari was reserved for Tribal candidate wherein the petitioner along with the other candidates filed their nomination and contested the election. Respondent No.5 being aggrieved with the elections filed an election petition before the Sub Divisional Officer, Gharghoda wherein the Sub Divisional Officer only after preliminary arguments made by the parties and without framing of issue, without providing appropriate opportunity of cross examination of witnesses etc. has directly issued the order of recounting of votes. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there has to be imperative necessity and a foundation by bringing material on record 3 / 6 and adducing cogent evidence in absence of the same there cannot be an order of recounting of votes. He would next contend that in this regard an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was filed by the petitioner, however, the same was not taken into consideration and without deciding the same the order of recounting has been passed, therefore, it is prayed that the instant petition may be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the instant petition may be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6. Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short "the Rules, 1995") provides for procedure before the specified officer and his powers. It is prescribed that subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shall be enquired into by the specified officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (for short "the CPC"), to the trial of suits. The proviso to sub- ule (1) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995 provides that it shall only be necessary for the specified officer to make a memorandum of the substance of evidence of any witness examined by him. 4 / 6 7. Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995 reads as under:- 11. Procedure before the specified officer and his powers.- (1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shall be enquired into by the specified officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of 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 evidence of any witness examined by him. (2) The specified officer, shall have the powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit in respect of the following matters:- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses, and requiring the deposit of their expenses; (c) compelling the production document; (d) examination of witnesses on oath; (e) reception of evidence taken on affidavit; and 5 / 6 (f) issuing commission for examination of witnesses and summoning and examining suo moto any person whose evidence, appears to him to be material. 8. Order XIV of the CPC provides for settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. Rule 1 of Order XIV provides that issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other and shall form the subject of a distinct issue and thereafter, provisions have been made for framing of issues. Rule3 of Order XIV provides for material from which issues may be framed and Rule 4 provides for examination of witnesses and documents before framing issues. 9. In the case on hand, there is a material denial of the proposition, as affirmed by the election petitioner before the election Tribunal. Thus, framing of issues and examination of witnesses is necessary before passing the order. The impugned order passed by the election Tribunal, appears to have been passed without complying with the substantial procedure as provided under the provisions of law. 10. To get an order of recount of votes proper foundation is required to be laid by the election petitioner indicating the precise material on the basis of which it could be urged by him with some substance that there has been either improper reception of invalid votes in favour of the elected candidate or improper rejection of valid votes in favour of the defeated candidate or wrong counting of votes in favour of the 6 / 6 elected candidate which had in reality been cast in favour of the defeated candidate. 11. On due consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the writ petition as also the facts and circumstances upon which the election Tribunal has passed an order of recount, the impugned orders dated 09/07/2025 (Annexure-P/1) & 15/07/2025 passed by the SDO, Revenue, Gharghoda cannot be sustained. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 09/07/2025 & 15/07/2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Gharghoda, District Raigarh in Revenue Case No.202503042600026/A-89/24-25 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the election Tribunal who shall decide the election petition, afresh in accordance with law. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to act in accordance with law on their own merits. Certified copy today. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu