1 CGHC010257252026 2026:CGHC:31037 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3556 of 2026 1 - Jageshwar Painkra S/o Late Dhan Sai Aged About 51 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Askala, Police Station And Tah. Lundra, Janpad Panchayat Lundra, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Deptt. Of Panchayat And Rural Development, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The State Election Commission (Local Body Panchayat) Through Its Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Collector Distt. Sarguja (C.G.). 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Cum Authorized Officer, Election Tribunal, Sub Division-Lundra (Dhaurpur), District Sarguja (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar Cum Returning Officer Tah-Lundra, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 6 - Chief Executive Officer Cum Assistant Returning Officer Janpad Panchayat- Lundra, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.). Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 7 - Presiding Officer Election Booth Center No. 86, Primary School Building, Askala (Awadhesh Kumar Head Master), Primary School Askara Khas, Vikas Khand Mainpat, District Sarguja (Mobile No. 9340056148). 8 - Presiding Officer Election Booth Center No. 87, Primary School Building Askala (Dhaneshwar Teacher), Middle School Banshipur, Tahsil Sitapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) Mobile No. 6260901009. 9 - Lakheshwar Painkra Son Of Shri Setu Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Askala, Police Station And Tahsil Lundra, Janpad Panchayat Lundra, District Sarguja (C.G.). 10 - Gauri Singh Wife Of Shri Rajendra Prasad Aged About 47 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Askala, Police Station And Tahsil Lundra, Janpad Panchayat Lundra, District Sarguja (C.G.). 11 - Kawal Sai S/o Ganjhu Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Askala, Police Station And Tah. Lundra, Janpad Panchayat Lundra, District Sarguja (C.G.). 12 - Kunjbihari S/o Vifal Ram Aged About 42 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Askala, Police Station And Tah. Lundra, Janpad Panchayat Lundra, District Sarguja (C.G.). 13 - Paras Nageshiya S/o Godho Aged About 48 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Askala, Police Station And Tah Lundra, Janpad Panchayat Lundra, Dist. Sarguja (C.G.). 14 - Parmeshwar Painkra S/o Veerta Aged About 53 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Askala, Police Station And Tah. Lundra, Janpad Panchayat Lundra, District Sarguja (C.G.). 15 - Mohan Singh Painkra S/o Dakhin Aged About 60 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Askala, Police Station And Tah. Lundra, Janpad Panchayat Lundra, District Sarguja (C.G.). 3 16 - Moti Painkra S/o Inder Sai Aged About 30 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Askala, Police Station And Tah. Lundra, Janpad Panchayat Lundra, District Sarguja (C.G.). 17 - Rajeshwar Painkra S/o Late Dhan Sai Aged About 60 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Askala, P.S. And Tah. Lundra, Janpad Panchayat Lundra, District Sarguja (C.G.). 18 - Nandlal S/o Saudha Aged About 57 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Askala, Police Station And Tah. Lundra Janpad Panchayat Lundra, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate. For State : Mr. Amit Nayak, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21.07.2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the authorities concerned for its kind perusal. 10.2 That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside /quash the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 (ANN P-1), passed by the Respondent No.04 (learned Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Cum Election Tribunal Under Section 122 of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, Dhaurpur} in Panchayat Case No. 202503022700028/A-89/2024-25 "Jageshwar Painkra Vs. Lakheshwar Paikra and 13 others" and election of Respondent No.09 on the post of Sarpanch also be declared null & void, consequently Respondent No.09 be restrained from performing the duty of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Askala, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Election Tribunal to decide the Election Petition after framing issues, recording evidence and providing opportunity to adduce evidence & cross- examination to both the parties, within stipulated period, in the interest of justice. 4 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper be also awarded..” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the election petition has been decided without framing issues and without recording evidence, as envisaged under Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and Rule 11 of the Rules of 1995, which prescribe the procedure to be followed while trying an election petition in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submits that the election petition was required to be decided strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and the Rules of 1995 framed thereunder. However, without affording the parties an opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence, the election petition has been decided, which is not in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 has been passed after due consideration of all relevant aspects and does not warrant any interference by this Court. However, learned State counsel could not dispute the fact that no issues were framed and no oral or documentary evidence of the parties was recorded before deciding the election petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that although the reply filed by the parties was taken on record by the concerned specified officer, the procedure prescribed under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995, particularly with regard to framing of issues and recording of evidence, appears not to have been followed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the impugned order, it is evident that Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995 prescribes the procedure for trial of an election petition by adopting the procedure applicable to the trial of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure. The said procedure contemplates, inter alia, framing of issues, affording the parties an opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence, and permitting cross-examination of witnesses before adjudication of the dispute. In the present case, the prescribed procedure does not appear to have been followed. This Court, in W.P. (C) No. 1608 of 2020 as well as W.P.(C) No. 2238 of 2025, has 5 categorically held that the procedure envisaged under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995 read with Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam is mandatory and is required to be followed while deciding an election petition. In view of the above, without issuing notice to the private respondents No. 9 to 18, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned S.D.O. (Revenue), Daurpur, District Surguja (C.G.), for fresh adjudication in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995 and Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. The concerned authority shall decide the election petition afresh after framing appropriate issues, affording the parties adequate opportunity to lead evidence and of hearing, and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. The petitioner is directed to remain present before the concerned S.D.O. (Revenue) on 10.08.2026. The concerned S.D.O. (Revenue) shall issue fresh notices to the private respondents and thereafter proceed to decide the election petition afresh by following the due procedure of law and after affording all parties an adequate opportunity of hearing. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju