1 2026:CGHC:23130 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2468 of 2026 Smt. Gayatri Sharma W/o Shri Kamal Kishore Sharma Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Hasuwa, Gram Panchayat Hasuwa, Block- Kasdol, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat Department Mahanadi Bhawan Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sub Divisional Officer/prescribed Officer (Election Tribunal) Giroud, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Ritu Atul Kesharwani W/o Shri Atul Kesharwani Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Hasuwa, Gram Panchayat Hasuwa, Block- Kasdol, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Rameshwari Sahu W/o Shri Gorelal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Village- Hasuwa, Gram Panchayat Hasuwa, Block- Kasdol, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Election Officer (Panchayat) Shri Vivek Patel, Tahsildar- Kasdol, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Assistant Election Officer (Panchayat) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kasdol, Distt.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. S.S. Choubey, Govt. Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.15 18:19:49 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 15.05.2026 1 By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 01.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 3. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record from the Election Tribunal for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the learned Election Tribunal/ SDO revenue Giroud for deciding the election petition after recording the evidence of parties in the matter. 10.4 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.3 contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat in the year 2025, wherein respondent No.3 was declared elected. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 committed corrupt practices during the election process inasmuch as the nomination form submitted by respondent No.3 did not 3 bear her original signatures and was allegedly signed by some other person. Though objection in this regard was raised before the Returning Officer, the same was not considered and respondent No.3 was permitted to contest the election. 3 Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 before the learned Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Election Tribunal, Gariyaband, seeking setting aside of the election of respondent No.3 and declaration of the petitioner as duly elected candidate. 4 It is further the case of the petitioner that after filing of reply by respondent No.3, the Election Tribunal framed issues in the matter and the petitioner also filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking examination of the disputed signatures of respondent No.3 through handwriting expert, undertaking to bear all expenses thereof. However, without recording evidence of the parties and without adjudicating the issues framed in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, the Election Tribunal dismissed the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and simultaneously closed the election petition in a mechanical manner vide impugned order dated 15.04.2026. Hence, the present petition. 4 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short ‘Adhiniyam, 1993’) as well as the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (in short ‘Rules, 1995’). He submits that though the Tribunal had framed issues in the election petition, it proceeded to dismiss the petition without recording evidence of the parties and without returning findings on the issues so framed. 6 He further submits that the petitioner had specifically raised allegations of corrupt practice against respondent No.3 on the ground that the nomination form did not bear her original signatures and, therefore, an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was filed seeking examination of the disputed signatures through handwriting expert, which was essential for proper adjudication of the controversy involved in the election petition. However, the said application was rejected and simultaneously the election petition itself was closed in a mechanical manner without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. 7 It is also submitted that the procedure adopted by the Election Tribunal is in clear violation of Rules 11 and 12 of the Rules, 1995 and contrary to the settled principles governing adjudication of 5 election disputes. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Election Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 8 On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the Election Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order and no illegality has been committed in dismissing the election petition. He submits that though issues were framed in the matter and the petitioner had filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking examination of disputed signatures through handwriting expert, however, the petitioner failed to produce sufficient material to substantiate the allegations of corrupt practice levelled against respondent No.3. He further submits that the Election Tribunal considered the pleadings and material available on record and thereafter rejected the application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It is submitted that once the Tribunal found that no further proceedings were required in the matter, it was well within its jurisdiction to close the election petition. 9 Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner cannot claim that the Election Tribunal was mandatorily required to record elaborate evidence in every case irrespective of the nature of controversy involved. According to him, the impugned order has been passed after affording adequate opportunity to the parties and does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of writ 6 jurisdiction. Therefore, prayer has been made for dismissal of the present petition. 10 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11 The principal issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the Election Tribunal was justified in dismissing the election petition simultaneously with rejection of the application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, without recording evidence of the parties and without adjudicating the issues already framed in the proceedings. 12 The second issue which falls for consideration is whether, after framing of issues under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, the Election Tribunal could have closed the election petition in a summary manner without granting adequate opportunity to the petitioner to prove the allegations of corrupt practice levelled against respondent No.3 regarding the disputed signatures appearing in the nomination form. 13 The Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices & Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, framed under Section 95(1) read with sub-sections (1) & (3) of Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, lay 7 down the procedure to be followed in election petitions. In particular, Rule 11 and Rule 12 are relevant, which are reproduced below: : "Rule 11. Procedure before the specified officer and his powers - (1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shall be enquried into by the specified officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 to the trial of suits : Provided that it shall only be necessary for the specified officer to make a memorandum of the substance of the evidence of any witness examined by him. Rule 12. Parties to produce their witnesses – It shall be the duty of the parties to produce their witnesses on the date fixed for evidence, and they shall not be entitled to an adjournment for non-attendance of their witnesses: Provided that the specified officer may, at his discretion, order the issue of summons to any witness on the necessary process fee and costs being deposited by the party concerned." 14 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Makhan Lal Bangal vs. Manas Bhunia & Others, (2001) 2 SCC 652 has laid down that an election petition is to be treated like a civil trial, requiring the framing of issues and the recording of evidence. The trial of an election petition must proceed in a manner similar to that of a 8 civil suit, where the issues are framed, evidence is led, and the merits of the petition are examined. The summary dismissal of the petition at the preliminary stage, without framing issues or recording evidence, is contrary to the established legal procedure. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference :- “19. An election petition is like a civil trial. The stage of framing the issues is an important one inasmuch as on that day the scope of the trial is determined by laying the path on which the trial shall proceed excluding diversions and departures therefrom. The date fixed for settlement of issues is, therefore, a date fixed for hearing. The real dispute between the parties is determined, the area of conflict is narrowed and the concave mirror held by the court reflecting the pleadings of the parties pinpoints into issues, the disputes on which the two sides differ. The correct decision of civil lis largely depends on correct framing of issues, correctly determining the real points in controversy which need to be decided. The scheme of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with settlement of issues shows that an issue arises when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by other should form the subject of a distinct issue. An obligation is cast on the court to read 9 the plaint/petition and the written statement/counter, if any, and then determine with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, the material propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are at variance. The issues shall be framed and recorded on which the decision of the case shall depend. The parties and their counsel are bound to assist the court in the process of framing of issues. Duty of the counsel does not belittle the primary obligation cast on the court. It is for the Presiding Judge to exert himself so as to frame sufficiently expressive issues. An omission to frame proper issues may be a ground for remanding the case for retrial subject to prejudice having been shown to have resulted by the omission. The petition may be disposed of at the first hearing if it appears that the parties are not at issue on any material question of law or of fact and the court may at once pronounce the judgment. If the parties are at issue on some questions of law or of fact, the suit or petition shall be fixed for trial calling upon the parties to adduce evidence on issues of fact. The evidence shall be confined to issues and the pleadings. No evidence on controversies not covered by issues and the pleadings, shall normally be admitted, for each party leads evidence in support of issues the burden of proving which lies on him. The object of an issue is to tie down the evidence and arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the 10 dispute is. The judgment, then proceeding issue-wise would be able to tell precisely how the dispute was decided.” 15 The High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Shahnawaz Ali v. Election Tribunal District Judge Muzaffarnagar and Others has held that the election petition filed by respondent therein was within the statutory limitation period of 30 days as prescribed under Section 20 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. The Court emphasized that election laws, particularly those concerning limitation, must be interpreted strictly. However, it found no delay or procedural lapse significant enough to invalidate the petition. Relevant paragraph of the said judgement is quoted below for ready reference : “10. As per Section 20, as mentioned above, election petition should be presented within 30 days after the date of which the result of election sought to be questioned is announced by the returning officer. I am convinced with the submissions as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that election law should be interpreted strictly, particularly, with regard to the prescribed period of limitation for the purposes of entertaining the election petition inasmuch as there is no provision qua applicability of the Limitation Act, except Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act as enunciated under proviso to Section 23 of the Act, 1916. Therefore, the phrase “within 30 days” is relevant which starts from the date 11 when result is announced by the returning officer. It is admitted to both the parties, and also a matter of record, that result of election for the post of President, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khatauli was declared on 13-5-2023, therefore, limitation for filing the election petition available to Respondent 2 was up to 12-6-2023. However, intending to avoid any delay, Respondent 2 has filed the election petition on 9-6-2023. Owing to summer vacations in the month of June, Respondent 2 has presented the election petition along with an application under Rule 13 of the Rules, 1957 for obtaining permission to file the election petition during vacation period. The Election Tribunal, owing to oppose made on behalf of the returned candidate, has rejected the application to leave for filing the election petition. Thereafter, second attempt was made by Respondent 2 on 1-7-2023, however, again permission has not been granted for want of presence of the petitioner and, ultimately, vide order impugned dated 3-7-2023, election petition was admitted and ordered to be registered. 13. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has attempted to present the election petition within 30 days of declaration of election result, however, same has been got registered on 4-7- 2023 in pursuance of the order impugned dated 3-7-2023. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed 12 reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sumitra Devi v. Special Judge/Additional District and Sessions Judge. In the cited judgment, provisions to file election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (in brevity “Act, 1947”) has been examined by the Full Bench of this Court with respect to the question referred before him, which are quoted hereinbelow: “1. Whether presentation of an election petition by the election petitioner personally is a mandatory requirement in view of sub-section (3) of Section 12 C(1) of the Act, 1947 and Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1994 and whether it's non- compliance is fatal or it would merely be an improper presentation, a curable defect? 2. Whether the decision of the Single Judge Bench of this Court in Viresh Kumar Tiwari case11 lays down the law correctly with regard to the question framed at Serial No. 1 or it is the Division Bench judgment in the case Lal Bahadur Singh case 12 and the subsequent Single Bench judgment in Urmila case 13 which lay down the law correctly? 21. In this conspectus, as above, in my considered opinion, Respondent 2 has presented election petition well within the prescribed period of limitation as enunciated under Section 20 of the Act, 1916. There is no apparent delay in filing the election petition to annul the same under Section 22 of Act, 1916 which denotes that not complying the 13 provisions under Section 20 of the Act, 1916 would be resulted into rejection of election petition. Finding returned by learned Election Tribunal has not specifically been denied in the writ petition. Remaining point advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is still open to be raised before the Election Tribunal. There is no justifiable ground to entertain the instant writ petition and interfere in the order impugned dated 3-7-2023 passed by learned District Judge (Election Tribunal), which is hereby affirmed. There is no illegality, perversity or irregularity in the order under challenge so as to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate as to how the present petitioner is prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, owing to the order under challenge.” 16 Upon careful consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that after institution of the election petition, the Election Tribunal had issued notice to the respondents, obtained reply from respondent No.3 and thereafter framed issues in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. The record further reflects that the petitioner had also filed evidence on 14 affidavit and moved an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking examination of the disputed signatures appearing on the nomination form of respondent No.3 through handwriting expert. 17 This Court is of the considered opinion that once issues had already been framed and the matter had proceeded to the stage of evidence, the Election Tribunal could not have dismissed the election petition in a summary manner without recording evidence of the parties and without returning findings on the issues framed in the proceedings. The allegations raised by the petitioner regarding disputed signatures and corrupt practice were matters requiring adjudication on the basis of evidence and, therefore, the procedure contemplated under the Rules of 1995 ought to have been followed in its true spirit. 18 This Court further finds that the impugned order reflects that while rejecting the application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, the Election Tribunal simultaneously closed the entire election petition merely observing that no further proceedings remained in the matter, without conducting trial of the election petition. Such course adopted by the Tribunal is contrary to the settled principles governing adjudication of election disputes and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 19 Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Election Tribunal is hereby set aside. The 15 matter is remanded back to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Election Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the election petition in accordance with law. The Election Tribunal shall proceed with the matter from the stage after framing of issues and shall afford adequate opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. 20 The Election Tribunal is further directed to conclude the trial of the election petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 21 Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 22 There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh