1 2025:CGHC:51037 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5294 of 2025 1 - Shri Hemcharan Mahilane S/o Shri Poshendra Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Churela, Gram Panchayat Kurraha, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Additional Collector District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - Shri Shiv Prasad Chourage S/o Late Shri Avadhraam R/o Village- Kurraha, Tahils- Sarangah, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5 - Shri Hulashram Mahilane S/o Mahadev Mahilane, R/o Village- Churela, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 6 - Shri Prasant Tandon S/o Babulal Tandon, R/o Village- Churela, Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 7 - Sub District Election Officer Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent No. 4/ Caveator : : Mrs. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 14/10/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following reliefs: 2 “10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction setting aside the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 as well as impugned order dated 30.07.2025 stay the effect and operation of the order dated 09.05.2025. 10.2 Issue a writ/order/direction setting aside/ quashed the proceeding of Revenue Case No. 202503320600016/A-89/2024- 2025 pending before the Learned S.D.O. 10.3 Any other relief in favour of petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by Additional Collector, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) passed in Appeal case no. 202503320600016/3214/rxm/2024-2025 (Annexure P/7) arising out of order dated 09.05.2025 passed by SDO, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) passed in Revenue Case No. 202503320600016/A-89/2024-2025 (Annexure P/4). The respondent no. 4 has filed election petition under Section 122 of Gram Panchayat Act, 1993. The petitioner has submitted written preliminary objection to the election petition and respondent no. 4 has also filed reply to the preliminary objection and denied the 3 contents of the objection. Without hearing the petitioner and without appreciating and considering the said preliminary objection on 09.05.2025, the learned SDO rejected the preliminary objection filed by the petitioner with a fine of Rs. 2000/-. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner had preferred revision under Section 91 of Gram Panchayat Act before the learned Additional Collector, respondent no. 4 also filed reply to the revision, after hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Collector has dismissed the revision and confirmed the order passed by SDO. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent at the outset, on perusal of the order dated 09.05.2025 accepted the fact that SDO has simply rejected the objection raised by the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. The relevant para of the order dated 09.05.2025 reads as under: izdj.k esa vukosnd dz- 1 }kjk izLrqr izkjafHkd vkifÙk ij vkosnd vf/koDrk dk tokc ,oa rdZ izLrqr A vkosnd vf/koDrk dk tokc Lohdkj djrs gq, izkjafHkd vkifÙk dks vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA 7. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the counsels, it is crystal clear from the above finding given by the SDO(R) that there is no reason assigned by the SDO (R) for rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner. It is a non-speaking and unreasoned order and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4 8. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the concerned SDO (R) only to decide the objection raised by the petitioner in accordance with law, rules and regulations by assigning reasons and by passing speaking order. 9. With the aforesaid direction/ observation, the present petition is disposed of. 10.It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion in respect of merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima