1 / 3 2025:CGHC:37881 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4075 of 2025 Smt. Sunita Sahu W/o Bhunuram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Beltukri, Tahsil- Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Divisional Commissioner Raipur Division, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 4 - The Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 5 - Returning Officer (Panchayat) Janpad Panchayat, Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) 6 - Maan Singh S/o Purushottam Sahu, R/o Village- Beltukri, Tahsil- Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 01/08/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.08.06 10:42:25 +0530 2 / 3 1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 04/02/2025 passed by the Respondent No.5, whereby the Respondent No.5 has rejected the nomination form of the petitioner consequently the petitioner has been deprived to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Beltukr. 2. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the notification for Panchayat election, the petitioner has submitted nomination form for contesting election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Beltukri. On 01/02/2025 the Respondent No.6 has made a complaint to the effect that the petitioner is in possession of Government land. On such complaint, the Respondent No.6 has passed the impugned order without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that rejecting the nomination of the petitioner without any opportunity of hearing is against the law and the Respondent No.6 has made a false complaint against the petitioner. 4. At the very outset learned State counsel would submit that the instant writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of the alternative remedy of filing an election petition under Section 122 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the 3 / 3 documents with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the fact that the alternative remedy under Section 122 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, of filing election petition is available to the petitioner, therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of the alternative remedy. It is accordingly dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu