1 2025:CGHC:20453 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2238 of 2025 1 - Komal Singh Netam S/o Sadaram Netam Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Dhodhri, Post Ghotiya, District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Mohal Manpur, Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ Election Tribunal Manpur, District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. 3 - Presiding Officer Booth No. 11, Village Dhodhri District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. 4 - Returning Officer Manpur, District Manpur, Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. 5 - Prabal Singh Kunjam S/o Dhaniram Kunjam R/o Village Dhodhri, District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. 6 - Jageshar Kunjam S/o Dhaniram Kunjam R/o Village Dhodhri, District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. 7 - Karan Singh Uike S/o Laxman Singh R/o Village Dhodhri, District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. 8 - Ramdas Tekam S/o Mehar Singh Tekam R/o Village Dhodhri, District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.05.09 19:36:57 +0530 2 9 - Duryodhan Kunjam S/o Budhram Kunjam R/o Village Dhodhri, District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Tandan, Advocate For State/Respondent/s : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/05/2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Tandan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General for the State/respondent/s appears on advance copy. 2. By this instant petition the petitioner has prayed for following relief/s : “10.1 That Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondents to conduct an immediate recounting of votes polled at Booth No. 11, Dhodhri, in the presence of the Petitioner and other candidates/agents, in accordance with the applicable election rules. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P/2) and further be pleased to remand the election petition to the respondent no. 2 for deciding the same afresh after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties in accordance with procedure and law. 3 10.3 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant writ petition is being preferred against the impugned order dated 28.03.2025, whereby without framing any issue, without recording evidence of the parties, without adhering the provisions of law and without examination of the Presiding Officer, the respondent no. 2 (Sub-Divisional Officer, Manpur), has summarily dismissed the election petition filed by the petitioner. He has also submitted that the ratio of the judgment rendered in case of Kalka Prasad v. Ramji Lal & Others reported in 2002(3) Μ.Ρ.H.T. 547, whereby the Hon'ble Court has laid down that the election petition is like a civil trial, when apparently there is no admission on the factual facts then the issues are required to be framed. He has also relied 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, in which it has been held that in an election trial evidence has to be adduced and issues are also to be framed. It was further laid down that the trial of an election petition is like a civil trial and unless issues are framed and evidence is recorded, proper adjudication of dispute could not be made. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and 4 submits that though issue has not been framed, but order has been passed in accordance with law. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 6. 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. 7. 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 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. 8. Accordingly, the respondents are directed that to take an appropriate decision in accordance with Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and pass an appropriate orders in respect of petitioner's claim for at the 5 earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi