1 CGHC010253112026 2026:CGHC:28623 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3506 of 2026 1 - Budhnath Paigor S/o Late Shri Shivram Paigor, Aged About 53 Years Member Janpad Panchayat Bilha, Area No. 12 R/o Village Nagoi Thana Sarkanda , Tahsil Beltara, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Election Commission, Through Its Secretary, Near D.K.S. Bhawan, Old Mantrlaya Road, Motibag Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector And District Election Officer Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Returning Officer (Panchayat) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilha, Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Assistant Returning Officer (Panchayat) / Tahsildar Bilha Tahsil Bilha District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Deepak Kumar Liberty S/o Shri Om Narayan Liberty Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Nagoi Dhabhipara Tahsil Beltara District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Alka Jwala Suryawanshi R/o Mangla Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Durga Kariyare R/o Urtum Tahsil Beltara District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 9 - Kapil Nath Suryawanshi R/o Village Nagoi Tahsil Beltara District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 10 - Kunti Mehar D/o Shri Neturam Mehar R/o Village Nagoi Tahsil Beltara , District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 11 - Lok Prakash Diwakar R/o Village Nagoi Tahsil Beltara , District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. S.S. Choubey, G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Aarti Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Nikhil Vadhwani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the concerned authority. 2. The petitioner is an elected Member of Janpad Panchayat, Bilha, Region No. 12, District Bilaspur (C.G.), having been declared elected in the Panchayat Election held on 20.02.2025. The respondent No.6, who contested the said election against the petitioner and was unsuccessful, preferred an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 read with the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 before the Collector and District Election Officer, Bilaspur, acting as the Election Tribunal, seeking correction of counting 3 records and issuance of certificate of elected candidate in his favour. During the pendency of the said election petition, the petitioner appeared as a non-applicant and submitted his reply. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raising objections regarding the maintainability of the election petition on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Rules of 1995, including non-payment of requisite court fee and non- attestation of copies of the election petition and documents. The learned Election Tribunal, after hearing the parties, vide impugned order dated 06.04.2026, dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC without assigning any cogent reasons or considering the mandatory requirements prescribed under the relevant Rules. Hence, the present petition. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1 to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for it's kind perusal; 10.2 to quash the impugned order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the Collector & District Election Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)/Election Tribunal (respondent no.3) in Case No. 1/A-89/2024- 25/202505072100013; 10.3 to quash the proceedings of Case No. 1/A-89/2024- 25/202505072100013 pending before the Collector & District Election Officer, Bilaspur, 4 District Bilaspur (C.G.)/Election Tribunal (respondent no.3);” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the learned Election Tribunal is contrary to law and the material available on record, as the same has been passed without assigning any cogent reasons and without due application of mind, thereby rendering it perverse and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the learned Election Tribunal has failed to appreciate the mandatory provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, particularly Rules 3, 6 and 7. It is submitted that the election petition preferred by respondent No.6 was not accompanied by duly attested copies of the election petition and supporting documents, the verification of the pleadings was not made in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and the requisite fee of Rs.500/- was also not deposited at the time of presentation of the election petition. Learned counsel submits that in view of such non-compliance of mandatory statutory provisions, the election petition was not maintainable and the learned Election Tribunal ought to have rejected the same at the threshold. However, the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the aforesaid objections and dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without recording any valid reasons. 5 5. Learned State Counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Election Tribunal after due consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that the election proceedings are pending consideration before the competent authority and the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to raise all such objections before the Election Tribunal during the course of hearing. Therefore, no interference is called for by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the State Election Commission has no role in adjudication of the election petition pending before the Election Tribunal and the matter is required to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. It is submitted that the present petition is premature and no interference is warranted at this stage. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 submits that the election petition has been filed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 and the objections raised by the petitioner have already been considered and rejected by the learned Election Tribunal. It is submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel further submits that disputed questions of fact regarding compliance of statutory requirements can be 6 adjudicated by the Election Tribunal during the course of proceedings and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Upon perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the learned Election Tribunal whereby his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the election petition preferred by respondent No.6 was not maintainable on account of alleged non- compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, particularly with regard to attestation of documents, verification of pleadings and payment of requisite fee. 10. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the petitioner, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, which govern the procedure for adjudication of election petitions and the grounds on which an election may be declared void. Rule 3, Rule 4, Rule 7 & Rule 8 of the said Rules, 1995 reads as under:- “3. Presentation of election petition.-(1) An election Petition shall be presented to the specified 7 Officer during the office hours by the person making the petition, or by a person authorised in writing in this behalf by the person making the petition. (2) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. 4.Parties to the petition.- Where the petitioner in addition to claiming a declaration that the election, of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected he shall join as respondents to his petition all the contesting candidates at the election. 7. Deposit of security. At the time of presentation of an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit with the specified officer a sum of Rs. five Hundred as security. Where the election of more than one candidate is called in question, a separate deposit of an equivalent amount shall be required in respect of each such returned candidates. 8. Procedure on receiving petition.-If the provisions of rule 3 or rule 4 or rule 7 have not been complied with, the petition, shall be dismissed by the specified officers: Provided that the petition shall not be dismissed under this rule without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.” 8 11. Now, when the case at hand is examined in the light of the aforesaid Rules, it is evident that there has been no violation of Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. The election petition was presented before the Specified Officer during office hours and was accompanied by as many copies thereof as there were respondents arrayed in the petition. Further, each copy of the election petition was duly attested by the election petitioner under his own signature as a true copy of the original petition, thereby satisfying the requirement prescribed under Rule 3. 12. Insofar as the objection regarding verification is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the election petition was not duly verified in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995. The said contention does not merit acceptance. A perusal of the election petition reveals that the pleadings have been duly verified by the election petitioner in the prescribed manner. Not only has the election petition been duly verified, but an affidavit affirming the correctness of the averments made therein has also been filed in support of the petition. Thus, the mandatory requirement relating to verification stands fully complied with. 13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon examining the record, this Court finds that there is nothing to indicate any violation of the mandatory provisions contained in 9 Rules 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Rules, 1995. Consequently, the procedure contemplated under Rule 8 for summary dismissal of an election petition is not attracted. On the contrary, the election petition appears to be in due conformity with the relevant statutory provisions. 14. In the aforesaid backdrop, the District Election Officer-cum- Collector, Bilaspur, by order dated 06.04.2026, rightly rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the election petition at the threshold, holding that the mandatory requirements prescribed under the Rules, 1995 had been duly complied with and, therefore, the election petition could not be dismissed in limine by invoking Rule 8. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the Collector. Since no violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Rules 3, 4, 6 or 7 of the Rules, 1995 has been established, the provisions of Rule 8 are clearly inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the District Election Officer-cum-Collector, Bilaspur, rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 15. It is settled law that the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an interlocutory order passed by 10 the Election Tribunal is limited. The issues raised by the petitioner involve consideration of factual as well as legal aspects, which has been appropriately examined by the learned Election Tribunal while adjudicating application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and it was found that there is nothing on record to attract provision under Rule 8 of the Rules,1995. the election petition finally. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to examine the merits of the objections raised by the petitioner, particularly when the election proceedings are pending before the competent authority. 16. It is also observed that rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC does not preclude the petitioner from raising all such objections available to him in accordance with law during the course of the election proceedings. The learned Election Tribunal shall consider all the objections raised by the petitioner, including those regarding compliance of the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, while deciding the election petition on its own merits. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the learned Election Tribunal at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the learned Election Tribunal shall proceed with the election petition in accordance with law and decide the same 11 expeditiously, without being influenced by any observation made by this Court in the present order. 18. It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open to be agitated before the learned Election Tribunal. 19. No order as to costs. sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha