1 2025:CGHC:30473 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3407 of 2025 1 - Tripura Bishi W/o Trisen Bishi Aged About 51 Years R/o Village - Arjunda Block And Post - Saraipali District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Presiding Officer Panchayat Saraipali District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 3 - Presiding Officer Cum Tahsiladar Chhattisgarh Panchayat Election, Election Office (Panchayat) Saraipali District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 4 - Gram Panchayat Devalbhata Through Sarpanch Devalbhata Block And Post - Saraipali District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 5 - Rajkumari Nayak W/o Goverdhan Nayak Aged About 53 Years R/o Village - Devalbhata, Gram Panchayat Devalbhata Block And Post - Saraipali District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal along with Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 04/07/2025 1. Counsel for the Petitioner prays for the following relief(s):- (i)That, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may pleased to set-aside/quash the 2 order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Respondent/ Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) in case No. 202506120500021/section 122. (ii) That it is therefore most respectfully prayed that Hon’ble Court may pleased to set-aside/ quash the election petition filed by the private respondent pending Respondent/ Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) in case No. 202506120500021. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Respondent/Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), whereby the petitioner’s preliminary objection raised by the petitioner against the application filed by the private respondent under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam with regard has been rejected. 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the election petition can be summarily dismissed under Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and disqualification for membership) Rules, 1995 (In short “Rules of 1995”), if there is non-compliance of the provisions contained in Rules 3, 4 & 7 of the Rules of 1995. The petitioner has raised objection that the election petition has not been filed supportive documents which is violation of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1995. This objection ought to be decided as preliminary issue, as in the event of the same being allowed, the election petition could be summarily dismissed under Rule 8 without further trial. The objection has been rejected and the election tribunal proceeded further in the matter. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that she would have no objection to said prayer of the petitioner being allowed. 5. Under the scheme of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Rules of 1995, the election petition can be summarily dismissed under Rule 8, if it is established that there has been non-compliance of Rule 3, 4 or 7. Therefore, when such kind of preliminary objection is raised, it has to be first decided before further proceeding in the matter. It appears that because of 3 direction issued by this Court earlier, the election tribunal is proceeding expeditiously with the trial of the election petition. However, if under the law, such objection of preliminary nature, are required to be decided first before proceeding further in the matter, the respondent/SDO (R ) has no option, but to first decide the preliminary objection in the light of provision contained in Rule 8 of the Rules of 1995. 6. In view of above, the impugned order rejecting objection, passed in the present case, cannot be sustained in law, and therefore, set aside. The election tribunal shall first decide the preliminary objection of the petitioner before proceeding further in the matter in accordance with law. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not commented upon the merits of the preliminary objection and it will be open for the tribunal to take appropriate decision on the preliminary objection in accordance with law . 8. In the result, the present petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.07.09 14:03:33 +0530