1 / 3 2025:CGHC:46459 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4845 of 2025 Tripura Bishi W/o Trisen Bishi Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Arjunda Block And Post Saraipali District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Presiding Officer Panchayat Saraipali District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Presiding Officer Cum Tahsildar Chhattisgarh Panchayat Election, Election Office (Panchayat) Saraipali District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Gram Panchayat Devalbhata Block And Post Saraipali District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Rajkumari Nayak W/o Goverdhan Nayak Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Devalbhata, Gram Panchayat Devalbhata, Block And Post Saraipali District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State : Ms. Akanksha Verma Dabhadker, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 11/09/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.09.15 10:39:07 +0530 2 / 3 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 23/07/2025 passed by Respondent/ Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), whereby the objection raised by the petitioenr against the application filed by the private respondent under Section 122 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that earlier the petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing WPC No.3407 of 2025 and has challenged the order passed by the Respondent /Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) rejecting his objection against the application filed by the respondent under Section 122 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 04/07/2025 with an observation that the election tribunal shall first decide the preliminary objection of the petitioner before proceeding further in the matter in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that after the order passed by this Court SDO has again dismissed the objection raised by the petitioner without considering the fact that the application filed by the private respondent is without any supportive documents for declaring the result as null and void. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the 3 / 3 documents with utmost circumspection. 6. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier also the petitioner has preferred the writ petition challenging the order passed by the SDO rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner wherein a direction was issued to decide the objection raised by the petitioner and thereafter to proceed further. Thereafter, in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the SDO, Saraipali, has decided the objection made by the petitioner and rejected the same on 23/07/2025. Admittedly, no final order has been passed by the concerned SDO against the petitioner and the objection raised by the petitioner has been rejected after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the SDO has passed the order which is an interlocutory order and not a final order and the election petition is still pending before the SDO and against the interlocutory order passed by the SDO, this Court cannot exercise the extraordinary power of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, I am not inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall not be influenced by the order passed by this Court while deciding the election petition on merits. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu