1 2025:CGHC:46290 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 4203 of 2025 Pushpa Shiv Kumar Ghritlahre W/o Shiv Kumar Ghritlahre Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Madku, Post - Baitalpur, P/s Sargaon, Distt. - Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat And Rural Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Through Secretary Panchayat And Rural Welfare Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Mungeli, Distt. - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pathariya Distt. - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 5 - Ambalika Sahu R/o R/9/41, Rama Valley, Ward No. 1, Bodari, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6 - Mahendra Singh @ Golu R/o Village - Hathkera, Post - Vabli, P/s And Tahasil - Sargaon, Distt. - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 7 - Netram Sahu R/o Village And Post - Vabli, P/s And Tahasil - Sargaon, Distt. - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 8 - Patrkar Rajkumar Lakshman Yada R/o Village Mohanbhattha, P/s And Tahasil - Sargaon, Distt. - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 2 9 - Sanjay Tiwari R/o Village Kirna, Post Baital, P/s And Tahasil - Sargaon, Distt. - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 10 - Taran Tandan Village Daona, Post - Anda, Block - Pathariya, Distt. - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 11 - The Returning Officer Cum Additional Collector Mungeli, Jila Panchayat Nirvachan, Jila Panchayat Circle No. - 12 Mungeli, Distt. - Mungeli Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 10/09/2025 1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no. 2 which is contrary to the mandatory rule 11, 12, 16 & 23 of The Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Election Petition Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rule, 1995. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent no. 2 to decide the election petition in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Election Petition Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rule, 1995 in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in 3 favour of petitioner, which deemed fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is challenging illegal, arbitrary order dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no. 2 whereby the election petitioner filed under Section 122 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 has been rejected without following the mandatory rule 11, 12, 16 & 23 of The Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Election Petition Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rule, 1995 (here in after referred as Rule 1995). It is respectfully submitted that, the election for the post of member of the Jila Panchayat Mungeli, Circle no. 12 was conducted on 23.02.2025 in which the petitioner along with respondent no. 5 to 10 were contested for the said post. The respondent no. 5 declared winning candidate thereafter on 24.03.2025 the petitioner filed election petition before the respondent no. 2. It is further respectfully submitted that, Rule 11 of Rule 1995 speaks about procedure for conducting election petition in accordance with the procedure applicable under the code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Specified Officer shall have right to call witnesses from the party as per Rule 12 of Rule 1995. The provision of Indian Evidence Act 1872 is also applicable in the election petition before the Specified Officer as per Rule 17 of Rule 1995. The decision shall be taken by the Specified Officer after 4 conclusion of the inquiry but in the present case the Specified Officer who is respondent no. 2 has not complied with the mandatory rules for deciding election petition and passed the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 whereby the election petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Hence, this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that though issue has not been framed, but order has been passed in accordance with law. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 5. Since the prescribed authority has not framed issues in an Election Petition, as such, the petitioner prays that the said order is contrary to the election rules, under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and in light of the judgment rendered in case of Kalka Prasad v. Ramji Lal & Others reported in 2002(3) Μ.Ρ.H.T. 547, and also relying upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia & Others reported in (2001) 2 SCC 652, wherein it was categorically held that the trial of an election petition is in the nature of a civil trial, and therefore, issues must be 5 framed and evidence adduced to ensure a fair and complete adjudication, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed for being in violation of the settled legal principles. 7. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 and it is directed to respondent No.2 that he shall decide the election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 in accordance with rules, regulations and law after framing of issues and providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties to led evidence and thereafter pass an appropriate order in respect of petitioner's claim for at the earliest preferably within a period of ‘three months’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant