1 2026:CGHC:8761-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 161 of 2026 Janki Prasad Kashyap S/o Keshav Prasad Aged About 70 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Chorbhatti, Tehsil Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) / Election Tribunal, Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 4 - Lakshimi Prasad S/o Rajaram Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Chorbhatti Tehsil Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 5 - Naresh Kashyap S/o Baldev Prasad Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Chorbhatti Tehsil Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 6 - Puniram Kashyap S/o Chaitram Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Chorbhatti Tehsil Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 7 - Sanat Patel S/o Ramfal Patel, Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 17, Chorbhatti Tehsil Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 8 - Presiding Officer, Raghuraj Singh Chandel, Village Taraud, Tehsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 9 - Returning Officer, Tehsildar Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 10 - Netram Kashyap S/o Pran Nath Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Chorbhatti Tehsil Pamgarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Rakshita Mishra, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19 . 02 .202 6 1. Heard Ms. Rakshita Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was respondent No.4 in WPC No. 2698/2025 (Netram Kashyap Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) has challenged the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in the said writ petition, by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ respondent No.10 herein has been allowed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Prescribed Authority / Election Tribunal directing re-counting of the votes is 3 not sustainable in the eye of law and the matter was remitted back to respondent No.3/Prescribed Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer to pass order afresh following due process of law, providing opportunity of hearing to other non-applicants also to lead evidence if they so desire and opportunity of hearing to all parties. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State that in an identical matter filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.10 herein, this Bench had already dismissed WA No. 47 of 2026 (Netram Kashyap vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 21.01.2026, observing as follows : “20. From a conjoint reading of paragraphs 11 to 18 of the impugned order, it is manifest that the learned Single Judge has recorded clear findings to the effect that, although some evidence had been recorded, the Election Tribunal failed to extend opportunity to all necessary parties, particularly other non-applicants against whom allegations were specifically made in the election petition. 21. The learned Single Judge has also noticed that the impugned order of the Election Tribunal directing recounting of votes does not disclose proper reasons nor demonstrates the recording of requisite satisfaction before ordering recounting, which is a mandatory requirement under the law governing election disputes. 22. The principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arikala Narasa Reddy (supra) and Secretary 4 and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall (supra) have been correctly appreciated and applied by the learned Single Judge. The impugned order clearly reflects that the remand has been ordered to ensure compliance with the mandatory procedure, to safeguard the principles of natural justice, and to ensure that any eventual decision of the Election Tribunal is reasoned, legally sustainable, and capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny. 23. We are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the remand would permit respondent No. 4 to fill up lacunae in his case. The directions contained in the impugned order neither permit improvement of pleadings nor grant liberty to travel beyond the scope of the election petition. On the contrary, the remand has been ordered only to ensure that all parties who are already on record and against whom allegations have been levelled are afforded an opportunity of hearing and that the Election Tribunal records its satisfaction in accordance with law before passing any order having serious civil consequences, such as recounting of votes. 24. The submission regarding jurisdictional issues and maintainability of the election petition has also been adequately taken care of by the learned Single Judge by setting aside the order of recounting itself and remitting the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. All contentions raised by the appellant, including maintainability and jurisdiction, remain open to be urged before the Election Tribunal, which is duty bound to adjudicate the same in accordance with law while deciding the election petition afresh. 4. 25. We also find no merit in the argument that the learned Single Judge has pre-judged the controversy or 5 expressed any opinion on the merits of the election dispute. The impugned order is carefully worded and confined strictly to procedural infirmities and non- compliance of mandatory requirements. The learned Single Judge has consciously refrained from making any observations which may prejudice either party before the Election Tribunal. 26. In an election dispute, the democratic mandate and sanctity of the electoral process are of paramount importance. Directions ensuring adherence to statutory procedure, opportunity of hearing to all concerned, and passing of reasoned orders cannot be faulted with. The remand in the present case subserves these very objectives and does not call for interference in intra- court appellate jurisdiction. 27. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. The writ appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 28. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 29. The Election Tribunal shall proceed in terms of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and conclude the election petition expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law.” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 47 of 2026, this appeal may also be disposed of in the same terms. 6 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 47 of 2026, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 47 of 2026. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the order dated 21.01.2026 passed in WA No. 47 of 2026 (Netram Kashyap vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra