1 2026:CGHC:26072 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3142 of 2026 1 - Surendra Singh Saluja Son Of Late Devendra Singh Saluja Aged About 45 Years Caste Sikh, Acting Member Of Gurudwara Guru Singh Sabha/samiti Manendragarh, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh And Resident Of Ward No. 18, Manendragarh, Tahsil And P.S. Manendragarh District M.C.B. (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Election Commission, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Election Commission Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector And District Election Officer Manendragarh District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manendragarh, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5 - Vinit Singh Nazul Tahsildar/competent Authority/returning Election Officer Tahsil Manendragarh, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh. 6 - Gurumit Singh Muddad Ex- President At Gurudwara Guru Singh Sabha/ Samiti Manendragarh, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh. 7 - Kuljeet Raina Ex-Secretary At Gurudwara Guru Singh Sabha/ Samiti Manendragarh, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh. 8 - Harprit Singh Padam Ex - Treasury At Gurudwara Guru Singh Sabha/ Samiti Manendragarh, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramsevak Soni, Advocate along with Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Dr. Saurabh Pande, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/06/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record the case of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 16.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no. 4 in the interest of 3 justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to do voting of the election as per consent and meeting of samiti of Gurudwara Guru Singh Sabha Manendragarh, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities to consider and decide the complaint application of the petitioner and other voters at the earliest, in the interest of justice. 10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to grant such other relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that the petitioner, being a member and voter of the Gurudwara Guru Singh Sabha, Manendragarh, District M.C.B. (Chhattisgarh), is aggrieved by the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondent authorities in proceeding with the election of the Society despite serious complaints regarding financial irregularities and illegal deletion of voters. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents No. 6 to 8, who were the erstwhile office bearers of the Society, have allegedly misappropriated and embezzled the funds of the Gurudwara, wherein, as per the audit report, an amount of Rs. 3,33,460/-, besides other substantial amounts, has remained unaccounted for. The petitioner and other members repeatedly submitted complaints before the competent 4 authorities seeking appropriate action against the said respondents; however, no enquiry or action has been taken till date. It is further alleged that out of 399 eligible voters, 44 voters have been illegally deleted from the electoral roll by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), who had no jurisdiction to alter or delete the voter list under the Constitution and Rules governing the Society. The petitioner has further challenged the impugned order dated 16.06.2026, whereby respondent No. 5 was appointed as the Returning Officer and respondents No. 6 to 8 were declared as President, Secretary and Treasurer, respectively, without first deciding the pending complaints. According to the petitioner, the election process was conducted in violation of the governing Rules inasmuch as the impugned order neither disclosed the nomination fee, election fee or polling venue nor afforded adequate time for allotment of symbols and campaigning, besides supplying an incomplete voter list. Aggrieved by the illegal conduct of the election process and the arbitrary action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking appropriate relief. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 16.06.2026 is wholly illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Constitution and Rules governing the Gurudwara Guru Singh Sabha and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. It is contended that despite serious allegations of embezzlement and financial irregularities against respondents No. 6 to 8, duly supported by 5 the audit report and other documentary evidence, the respondent authorities failed to conduct any enquiry or decide the complaints submitted by the petitioner and other members before proceeding with the election. It is further submitted that the illegal deletion of 44 genuine voters out of 399 eligible members by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), who had no jurisdiction to modify the electoral roll, has vitiated the entire election process and deprived eligible members of their valuable right to vote. Learned counsel further submits that the election process suffers from gross procedural irregularities, as the impugned order does not disclose the nomination fee, election fee or polling venue, only one day's time was provided for allotment of symbols immediately before polling, and an incomplete voter list was supplied to the petitioner. It is also contended that respondents No. 6 to 8 submitted incorrect statements of accounts showing unexplained reduction in the Society's funds, which further substantiates the allegations of financial misappropriation. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondent authorities acted in a wholly arbitrary and unfair manner in conducting the election without first adjudicating the pending complaints and disputes relating to the Society, and accordingly the impugned order deserves to be set aside with a direction to the competent authority to first decide the petitioner's complaints and thereafter conduct the election strictly in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State as 6 well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submit that the election process has already commenced and, therefore, at this stage, this Court ought not to interfere with the ongoing electoral process in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that once the election process has been set in motion, the constitutional and statutory scheme envisages that any grievance relating to the conduct of the election or any irregularity alleged therein is required to be adjudicated by the competent forum under the relevant statutory provisions after the conclusion of the election. As such, the present writ petition is premature and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that the election process has already commenced, this Court is of the opinion that interference at this stage would not be warranted in view of the constitutional embargo contained under Article 329 of the Constitution of India. It is a settled principle of law that once the election process has been set in motion, the Constitutional Courts ordinarily ought not to interfere with the electoral process and the aggrieved person is required to avail the statutory remedy available under the relevant enactment after the conclusion of the election. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, 7 in the recent case concerning Meenakshi Natarajan, has also reiterated that after the commencement of the election process, judicial interference is ordinarily impermissible and any grievance relating to the election process is required to be agitated by availing the statutory remedy provided under the law after the election is over. 7. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate statutory remedy before the competent authority, in accordance with the provisions applicable in the case. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat