2025:JHHC:38798 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 6419 of 2022 Rambhajan Sah, Aged about 31 years, son of Sri Bhumeshwar Sah, Resident of Village Kathwan, P.O. Kathwan, P.S-Poraiyahat, District-Godda …… Petitioner Versus 1.State of Jharkhand 2.Deputy Commissioner, Godda. 3.S.D.O, Godda. 4.Circle Officer-cum-Returning Officer, Poraiyahat, District- Godda. 5.Suman Kumar, Son of late Sudhir Pandit, P.O-Nawdiha, P.S. Poraiyahat, District-Godda. .…… Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate : Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Mayank, Advocate For the State : Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C to GA-III For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocate ----------- CAV on:13.11.2025 Delivered on:19/12/2025 The petitioner has prayed in this writ petition for the following reliefs: “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 10.12.2022 (Annexure-10) passed in Election Petition No. 4/2022 (Suman Kumar Vrs. Ram Bhajan Sah) by which the S.D.O. Godda (Officer vested with power to hear the election petition) has taken a decision to accept the Election Petition and on the same day he has taken a decision to cancel the result of the election of the petitioner by which the petitioner was declared elected on the same day, he has decided that the Respondent No.5 is declared elected. AND 2025:JHHC:38798 2 (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ particularly in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to stay the impugned order dated 10.12.2022 passed in Election Petition No. 4/2022 since the S.D.O. Godda has not adjudicated the said Election Petition in consonance with the Rules provided specifically stipulated under Jharkhand Panchayat Nirvachan Niymawali, 2001 and the same is also not in accordance with the law decided in this regard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Udey Chand Vrs. Suraj Singh reported in (2009) 10 SCC 170. AND (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ particularly in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to restrain the Respondent No.5 to discharge the function of Mukhiya till the instant writ petition is decided. AND/OR (iv) For further issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order(s)/direction (s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. During pendency of this writ petition, I.A. No.2014 of 2023 for making amendment in paragraph-1 as well as in the prayer portion of the writ petition because during pendency of the writ petition, Respondent No.4 had issued Election Certificate dated 04.02.2023 declaring the Respondent No.5 elected from the Nawdiha Panchayat, District-Godda. Then vide order dated 01.07.2024, the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar) of this Court has allowed the said amendment petition by directing the learned counsel for the petitioner to incorporate the necessary amendment as stated in I.A. No.2014 of 2023. 2025:JHHC:38798 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 10.12.2022 (Annexure-10) passed by the Respondent No.3 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law as Respondent No.3 has taken wrong decision to cancel the result of election of the writ petitioner by which the petitioner was declared elected and the S.D.O., Godda-Respondent No.3 committed further illegality by deciding that the Respondent No.5 is declared elected. It is further submitted that even the Election Certificate dated 04.02.2023 issued by the Respondent No.4 i.e. Circle Officer-cum-Returning Officer is also illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law as the same was issued erroneously at the instance of his higher authorities. It is submitted that an election was held in Poraiyahat Block in the district of Godda on 17.05.2022 for the post of Mukhiya of Nawdiha Panchayat and the petitioner was declared successful on 17.05.2022 and Election Certificate was issued to him. Thereafter the petitioner filed Election Petition on 25.05.2022 and recounting of vote was done in the said election petition and which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.6025 of 2022 but the same was disposed of on 09.12.2022 by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court (Annexure-9) by directing the Sub- Divisional Officer, Godda to proceed. Thereafter on the very next day i.e. 10.12.2022, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda has done the recounting and has declared the Respondent No.5 elected for the post of Mukhiya vide order dated 10.12.2022 (Annexure-10) which is under challenge. 4. It is submitted that only the identical fresh vote casted in other booths i.e. from 129 to 137, which were taken into consideration and thereafter the entire votes have been recounted and after recounting the results were declared, therefore, such exercise is not at all in consonance with the 2025:JHHC:38798 4 Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001. It is submitted that the action of the respondent authorities for passing the impugned order dated 10.12.2022 passed in Election Petition No.4 of 2022 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the respondent authorities cannot pass the impugned order dated 10.12.2022 cancelling the result declared earlier without giving concrete finding about previous results and not in consonance with the law. It is submitted that the entire proceeding in Election Petition No.4 of 2022 has proceeded in accordance with the Jharkhand Panchayat Nirvachan Niyamawali 2021. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Udey Chand Versus Surat Singh and Another reported in (2009) 10 SCC 170. 6. It is further submitted that even the Election Certificate dated 04.02.2023 (Annexure-11) issued by the Circle Officer, Poraiyahat, is illegal, as the same has been issued in complete violation of provisions of Section 152 of Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act and recounting has been done in violation of Section 81 of Rule, 2001 of Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 (Para-23 and 25 of the writ petition). Thus, the impugned order dated 10.12.2022 (Annexure-10) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda (i.e. Respondent No.3) and the Election Certificate dated 04.02.2023 (Annexure- 11) issued by the Circle Officer, Poraiyahat, District Godda may be set aside and this writ petition may be allowed. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Aditya Raman, learned A.C to GA- III for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that order dated 10.12.2022 (Annexure-10) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda (i.e. Respondent No.3) and the Election Certificate dated 04.02.2023 (Annexure-11) issued by the Circle 2025:JHHC:38798 5 Officer, Poraiyahat, District Godda, are proper and no interference is required and this writ petition is devoid of merit. 8. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting Respondent No.5 has submitted that this writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of merit and there is no merit in this writ petition. It is submitted that order dated 10.12.2022 (Annexure-10) and the Election Certificate dated 04.02.2023 (Annexure-11) are proper and has been properly issued in favour of the Respondent No.5. 9. It is submitted that the Respondent No.5 was one of the candidates contesting for the post of Mukhiya, Nawdiha Panchayat, Block Poraiyahat, District Godda having been allotted the symbol “Durbin in the Panchyat Election 2022. It is further submitted that polling was done on 14.05.2022 and counting on 17.05.2022 was done at Godda College, Hall No. 2, counting of booth No.126 and 127 on table No. 14 and 15 while booth No. 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136 and 137 on table No. 1 to 10 respectively, it is further submitted that during counting of votes on the night of 17.05.2022, twice electricity was disrupted ending the entire hall into darkness for which the CCTV footages were available, taking advantage of the darkness, the petitioner's votes were mixed with the votes of the respondent no. 5 and other contestants and counted, for which the respondent no. 5 and his election agent were protested/objected on that very time itself and immediately. Thereafter, the respondent no 5 had submitted his application for re-counting before the Returning Officer on 17.05.2022 under Rule 81 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rule, 2001 and after receiving of the objection application Returning Officer noted down on the application that there was electricity disruption in-spite of that Returning Officer has refused to re- 2025:JHHC:38798 6 counting on 17.05.22 while CCTV footage has proof. It is further stated that during the entire counting, Respondent No. 5 had continuously requested for re-counting to the Returning Officer and which will be evident from the application of Respondent No. 5 and rejection order of Returning officer dated 17.05.2022 that after electricity disruption the Respondent No.5 had submitted his application for recounting as the counting was done on 17.05.2022 itself and rejection order of his application is also of 17.05.2022 and as per rule 81 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rule, 2001 time for submitting application regarding re-counting has not been given. 10. It is submitted that the counting was done in the presence of officers, Government authorities, candidates and their representatives in hall, but when the electricity has been disrupted at that very time, the petitioner with the help of the staffs, who was involved in the counting have played mischievous act. 11. It is submitted that prior to disruption, due to the electricity cut, the Respondent no. 5 was leading in counting, but after electricity disruption, the petitioner started leading in counting and out of 5 contestant, the petitioner has got the higher votes due to play of mischievous act during power cut and thereafter, declared elected, which is not valid as per the Statutory form 21 under rule 83 (1) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rule, 2001 as because he has got higher vote and the petitioner was declared winner by 14 votes (the petitioner got total 1427 votes) while the Respondent no. 5 was got total 1413 votes). Immediately, thereafter, the Respondent No.5 submitted application for recounting before the Returning Officer with objection. 2025:JHHC:38798 7 It is submitted that when the application submitted by the respondent no. 5 before the Returning Officer was not entertained and rejected on 17.05.2022, then the Respondent No.5 has filed the Election Petition No. 01 of 2022, but the same was rejected for want of Court fee. Thereafter, the Respondent No.5 filed another Election Petition bearing Election Petition No.04 of 2022 before the learned Court of S.D.O., Godda on 25.05.2022 under Section 151 of Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2001. 12. Thereafter notice was served upon the petitioner and after transfer of Mr. Ritu Raj vide notification dated 21.10.2022 from the post of SDO, Godda to the post of Joint Secretary Labour Planning and Training Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Executive Magistrate, Godda had been given complete charge of SDO, Godda for disposal of the work of SDO Office in time and said order has been communicated vide Memo No.931 dated 28.10.2022. 13. Thereafter on 23.11.2022, the S.D.O directed the Block Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Poraiyahat to obtain entire ballot papers in relation to said election and to ensure its production before S.D.O on 10.12.2022. However, the said order dated 23.11.2022 was challenged by the writ petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No.6025 of 2022. However, the same was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar) of this Court on 09.12.2022 as not maintainable. Thereafter the recounting was done and the Respondent No.5 was declared successful vide order dated 10.12.2022 (Annexure-10) of the writ petition and Annexure-H to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5. 14. Thus, the Respondent No.5 was declared successful in the election vide dated 10.12.2022. It is submitted that after elected 2025:JHHC:38798 8 Mukhiya of Nawdiha certificate issued on Panchayat and after obtaining opinion from the Director Panchayati Raj vide letter dated 03.02.2023 election certificate issued on 04.02.2023 in the name of Respondent no. 5 i.e. Suman Kumar and thereafter Gazette notification has been published on 23.02.2023 and the same has been sent to the Director Panchayati Raj, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide memo no. 147 dated 28.02.2023. Photo copies of letter dated 03.02.2023, election certificate issued on 04.02.2023 and memo no. 147 dated 28.02.23 along with Gazette notification published on 23.02.2023 has been enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure- L, M & N to the counter affidavit. It is submitted that vide Memo No. 216 dated 01.03.2023 as per section 24 of the Act, Respondent no. 5 had taken oath of Mukhiya of Nawdiha panchayat on 04.03.2023 and since then he is discharging his duty sincerely without any complaint from any corner. Thus, there is no merit in this writ petition and hence the writ petition may be dismissed. 15. Perused the records of this case and considered the submissions of both the sides. 16. It appears that the petitioner and the Respondent No.5 along with four other persons contested the election for the post of Mukhiya for Nawdiha Panchayat in Poraiyahat Block in the District of Godda, and the election was held in the month of May, 2022. In the said election, the counting was held on 17.05.2022 at Godda College Hall No.2. 17. It appears that during the period of counting, on the night of 17.05.2022, the electricity was disrupted twice for few seconds and although during the period of counting, all the contestants along with their representatives as well as officers 2025:JHHC:38798 9 involved in the poling transaction were present. Therefore, there was absolutely no chance for any person to play any mischievous act. 18. It appears that after the counting is over, the result was published in the Statutory Form-21 under Rule 83 (1) of the Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Rule 2001 and from the aforesaid result, it is quite evident that there are altogether five persons contested for the election of Mukhiya of Nawdiha Gram Panchayat Area No. 11, out of which the petitioner has got the higher vote and therefore he was declared elected which is evident from the aforesaid result in statutory form dated 17.05.2022. 19. It appears that that after the result of election was declared on 17.05.2022 by the observer namely Mr. Rajiv Kumar who was holding the government post has issued No Objection Certificate for declaration of the Result. 20. It appears that the counting was over at around 8 p.m. on 17.05.2022 and the petitioner was declared elected and has been given an Election Certificate in the prescribed Statutory Form No. 22 as provided under Rule 84 and 101 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rule, 2001. Photo copy of the Election Certificate dated 17.05.2022 issued by the competent authority has been enclosed as Annexure-3. 21. It appears that the Respondent No.5 has filed Election Petition No. 1/2022 but the same was rejected as Election Petition was not filed along with the requisite court fee. 22. It appears that that the Respondent No.5 had filed another Election Petition No. 4/2022 on 25.05.2022 in the court of SDO, Godda, since the SDO Godda is authorized officer to hear the 2025:JHHC:38798 10 Election Petition under section 151 of the Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2001. 23. It appears that the petitioner was issued notice in the said election proceeding and the petitioner had filed reply. 24. Thereafter the present S.D.O, Godda who is In-charge of the post has passed the interim order in Election Petition No. 4/2022 on 23.11.2022 by which he has directed the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Officer to ensure the production of the entire ballot papers relating to the Election of Mukhiya of Nawdiha Panchayat by 10th of December 2022 so that the ballot papers can be examined in order to find out whether any irregularity has been committed or not. 25. It appears that Section 152 of the Jharkhand Panchyati Raj Act states about the ground on which the election can be cancelled. The aforesaid ground has been given in section 151 (1) (2) as follows :- (i) If the elected member does not have the requisite qualification for contesting election. (ii) If the elected member or his agent has committed any illegality with his property for the purpose of election. (iii) If any nomination form is rejected illegally. (iv) If the nomination paper has been accepted illegally, any irregularity has been committed. (v) If any vote obtained in an illegal manner and if there is any violation of any provisions of law. 26. It appears that Section 53 of the Act, 2001 further deals the basis on which there is a claim of a person that instead of said person, the person elected has wrongly been made. 27. It appears that Section 81 of Rule 2001 of Jharkhand Panchayat Act, 2001 prescribes about the procedure for recounting. 2025:JHHC:38798 11 28. Thereafter the petitioner preferred the writ petition being WP (C) No. 6025 of 2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 09.12.2022 by which the Hon'ble Court has directed the SD.O Godda being the competent authority to hear the Election Petition and to proceed in accordance with the law. The Hon'ble Court did not interfere the writ petition at the relevant time since the Election Petition has been decided and the order impugned was considered to be an interim order. 29. It appears that after disposal of the writ petition, on the very next date i.e. on 10.12.2022, the S.D.O Godda has evaluated the entire ballot papers and has made recounting and immediately after that a decision has been taken to cancel the results earlier by which the petitioner was declared elected on the post of Mukhiya in Village Nawdiha Panchayat, and Respondent No.5 had been declared elected for the post of Mukhiya in the said Panchayat. 30. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Poraiyahat had issued Election Certificate of Mukhiya on 04.02.2023 (Annexure-11). 31. It has been held in the case of Udey Chand vs. Surat Singh and Another reported in (2009) 10 SCC 170 at para-26 to 29 as follows:- “Para-26:- We have no hesitation in holding that a petition for re-count as contemplated under clause (b) of Section 176(4) of the Act must contain adequate statement of material facts on which the election petitioner relies in support of his allegation(s) and it must also be supported by some contemporaneous evidence to show irregularity or illegality in the counting. On this basic material, which affords the basis for the allegations in the petition and the response of the opposite party thereon, the Tribunal is required to record its prima facie satisfaction that in order to decide the issue raised in the petition and in order to do complete justice between the parties the “scrutiny and computation of the votes” recorded in favour of each candidate is necessary. The need to record reasons in support of the satisfaction can hardly be overemphasised because reasons are the soul of the order/judgment. Therefore, 2025:JHHC:38798 12 we hold that though in an election petition seeking an order under Section 176(4)(b) of the Act, it may not be necessary for the court to hold a regular enquiry as postulated under clause (a) of Section 176(4) of the Act but the court is obliged to apply its mind to the material facts, disclosed in the petition, on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality are founded, along with some contemporaneous evidence, which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. An order for re-count on the basis of bare allegations in the election petition would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction under the provision. Para-27:- Having viewed the matter in the light of the principles enunciated above, we are constrained to note that the Tribunal as also the High Court lost sight of the parameters to be applied while considering the petition seeking re-counting of votes. We find that the allegations in the election petition were not only vague, even the basic material facts as could have made the Tribunal reach a prima facie satisfaction that re- count of ballots was necessary were missing in the petition. Affidavit in support of the allegations, summarised in para 3 above, was neither filed nor called for, more so, in a case where serious allegations of misconduct were levelled against the Returning Officer. Having regard to the fact that concededly the result sheet had been signed by the election petitioner, perhaps, it was a fit case where the examination of the Returning Officer was necessary to elicit the correctness of the allegations in the petition. Para-28:- It is manifest from the observations of the Tribunal, extracted in para 5 above, that the sole factor which had weighed with it to order re-count was the margin of only four votes between the appellant and the election petitioner. In our opinion, a narrow margin of four votes does not per se give rise to a presumption that there had been an irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes. Para-29: Apart from laying the foundation in the pleadings, the onus to prove the allegation of irregularity or illegality on the part of the Returning Officer was on the election petitioner, which he failed to discharge. The allegation against the Returning Officer of obtaining the signatures of the election petitioner on a blank result sheet and filling up the same after the election petitioner had left the polling station, was a serious allegation involving dereliction of duty. It could not be accepted at its face value and had to be proved with cogent material, which was not done.” 2025:JHHC:38798 13 However, the above judgment is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case as because in the instant case the recounting has been done by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the direction of the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 32. It transpires that the recounting of the votes has been done by the Respondent No.3 i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda in the light of the order dated 09.12.2022 passed in W.P. (C) No.6025 of 2022 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar) of this Court. 33. Thus, this Court finds that there is no irregularity and illegality in the impugned order dated 10.12.2022 (Annexure- 10) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda (i.e. Respondent No.3) and the Election Certificate dated 04.02.2023 (Annexure-11) issued by the Circle Officer, Poraiyahat, District Godda. 34. Accordingly, the W.P.(C) No.6419 of 2022 is, hereby, dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 19.12.2025 Saket/- NAFR