1 2025:CGHC:8287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 937 of 2025 1 - Smt. Indrani Kaiwart W/o Shri Set Kumar Kaiwart Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Chhata P.O. Nagarda Tahsil Kasdol District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Set Kumar Kaiwart S/o Shri Hari Lal Kaiwart Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Chhata P.O. Nagarda Tahsil Kasdol District -Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Through The Secretary Election Bhawan Sector- 19 North Block Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector And District Electoral Officer Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kasdol District - Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Naib Tahsildar Kasdol District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Returning Officer (Panchayat Election ) Janpad Panchayat AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.02.20 10:40:44 +0530 2 Kasdol District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Uma Nayak W/o Parmanand Nayak R/o Village Chhata P.O. Nagarda Police Station Saliha Tahsil - Sonakhan District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 7 - Sohadra Bai Nayak W/o Udal Nayak R/o Village Chhata P.O. Nagarda Police Station Saliha Tahsil Sonakhan District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 8 - Parmanand Nayak S/o Udal Nayak R/o Village Chhata P.O. Nagarda Police Station Saliha Tahsil Sonakhan District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivraj Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 18/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to reject the nomination form/candidature of the respondent Nos.6 & 7 on the ground that they violated the provisions of the model code of conduct. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent Nos.6 & 7 with the intention of wooing and manipulating the voters of Gram Panchayat Chhata deposited an amount of Rs. 31,99,000/- in the bank account of Aadarsh 3 Gram Vikas Samiti and as such they violated the provisions of the model code of conduct. He would further submit that the petitioners raised this issue before the respondent authorities but the same does not fructify. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the aforesaid submission of the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. The above mentioned facts are not in dispute, the only issue is non considering the objection raised by the petitioners against the respondent Nos.6 & 7. Non-consideration of the objection of the petitioners on whatsoever ground, it is during the process of election and this Court cannot entertain the petition amidst the election. In fact, the word ‘election’ is used to embrace the whole procedure of election and is not confined to the final result thereof. 6. It is the well settled law that whether the returning Officer is justified in non-considering the objection, is not a matter for the Court to decide in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. This issue should be agitated by an aggrieved party in an election petition only. (See- Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S. Rathnam and Others reported in 2004 7 SCC 492). 7. It is noteworthy to mention here that bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters has been provided under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, which reads thus : 4 243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.--Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution-- (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any Law made by the Legislature of a State. 8. Rule 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (henceforth ‘the Rules, 1995’) speaks about grounds for declaring election to be void. Rule 21(1)(c) provides that 21. Grounds for declaring election to be void.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) if the specified officer is of opinion- xxx xxx xxx (c) that any nomination paper has been 9. From the above provision, it is apparent that the Rules, 1995 provide a remedy to question the election of a candidate. 5 10.Considering the facts of the case, grievance raised and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr Vs The Chief Election Commissioner [1978 (1) SCC 405] and N.P. Ponnuswami V. Returning Officer, Nanmakkal Constituency & Ors [AIR 1952 SC 64], Manda Jaganath (supra), and also considering Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and Rule 21(1)(c) of the Rules, 1995, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition as the writ petition is not maintainable. 11.As a sequel, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, at the admission stage itself. 12.Consequently, the interlocutory applications also stand disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep