1 CGHC010328702026 2026:CGHC:38779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4418 of 2026 1 - Dr. Surendra Mishra S/o Harihar Prasad Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o O B/2, Vaishali Nagar, Post Kusmunda, Vikas Nagar Kusmunda, Post Gevra Basti, District Korba Chhattisgarh 2 - Ajit Kumar Pandey S/o Arun Kumar Pandey Aged About 40 Years R/o Beside Rallash Enclave Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Bhuvan Bhaskar Sahu S/o Dayashankar Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Bazaar Para, Sonhat, Sonhat, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary/ Secretary, Department Of Ayush, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director/ Competent Authority Ayush, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Registrar Chhattisgarh Ayurvedic, Unani Tatha Prakritik Chikitsa Parishad, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Returning Officer/ Chief Election Officer Election Concerning VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Chhattisarh, Ayurvedic, Unani Tahta Prakritik Chikitsa Parishad, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For State :- Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G. For Respondents No. 3 & 4 :- Mr. R.S. Marhas, Senior Advocate through V.C. along with Ms. Shruti Bariar, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 02.09.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality, fairness and impartiality of the ongoing election process concerning the Chhattisgarh Ayurvedic, Unani Tatha Prakritik Chikitsa Parishad. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioners are registered Ayurvedic medical practitioners and eligible voters in the aforesaid election. Their principal grievance is with regard to the manner in which the ballot papers have been designed and the procedure adopted for their collection, custody and preservation prior to counting. According to the petitioners, the ballot papers bear identifiable Serial/Kramank Numbers which can allegedly be correlated with the records maintained in relation to individual voters. It is contended that such identification creates a reasonable apprehension that the electoral choice exercised by a particular 3 voter may become identifiable, thereby compromising the secrecy of the ballot. The petitioners have further raised objection to the procedure prescribed/adopted for collection, handling and custody of the ballot papers after voting and before counting. According to them, the existing arrangement does not provide for an independent, secure and verifiable chain of custody indicating the person receiving the ballots, the persons having access thereto and the manner in which the ballot papers are to be secured until the counting process. The petitioners have also raised an objection regarding the appointment of the Returning Officer. It is stated that the Returning Officer appointed to conduct/supervise the election is himself a registered Ayurvedic medical practitioner and an eligible voter in the same election. Though no allegation of misconduct has been made against him merely on account of such status, the petitioners contend that, particularly when considered along with their objections regarding identifiable ballot papers and their custody, his dual capacity gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of conflict of interest and lack of institutional impartiality. It is further the case of the petitioners that they had submitted representations and objections before the Returning Officer as well as the competent authorities, including the AYUSH authorities, during the subsistence of the election process, pointing out the aforesaid irregularities and apprehensions. According to the petitioners, however, no effective corrective measure has been taken by the concerned authorities. 4 The petitioners apprehend that if the election process is permitted to proceed to counting and declaration of the result, consequential rights and liabilities may accrue in favour of the elected candidates, thereby creating further complications and rendering the challenge to the disputed election procedure more difficult. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking, inter alia, stay of the ongoing election proceedings and preservation in sealed and secure custody of all ballot papers, Serial/Kramank Number records, voter-issuance registers and other connected election records. The petitioners have further prayed that, in the event this Court finds the existing election procedure to be vitiated, the election be conducted afresh in a fair, transparent and secure manner under independent supervision. For the purpose of such fresh election, the petitioners have also sought, to the extent permissible under the applicable statutory provisions and rules, provision of neutral polling facilities in each Revenue Commissioner's Division, preferably at designated District Collector Offices or other suitable Government premises, together with official custody of ballot boxes, a documented chain of custody and supervision by an independent Returning Officer who is not personally interested in the election. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to Call for the relevant original election records, if 5 deemed necessary, for examination of the petitioners' grievance; 10.2 To direct the respondent registrar to perform mandatory statutory duties provided in the Act 1970 and Rules 1973 and decide the objections raised by the petitioner before proceeding further to conduct the election as per rule 6 r/w rule 9 subrule-3, r/w rule 13 subrule-4 and decide the objection raised by the petitioners and Hon'ble High Court may further direct the registrar to proceed with election only upon deciding of the objection filed by petitioner as per rule the Chhattisgarh Ayurvedic, Unani Tatha Prakritic Chikitsa Vyavasayi Rules 1973. 10.3 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court may also be granted in favour of the petitioners.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that the petitioners do not seek to stall or stop the ongoing election process. He submits that the objections raised by the petitioners are limited to certain aspects of the election procedure and that the said objections may be considered by the competent authorities in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied if the authorities are directed to consider and decide their objections in accordance with law while permitting the election process to proceed. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that one of the objections raised by the petitioners has 6 already been considered by the competent authority and necessary measures have been taken in that regard. So far as the remaining two objections are concerned, it is submitted that the same shall also be duly considered and appropriate steps, if required, shall be taken in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the objections raised by the petitioners shall be duly considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and Rules. 6. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the authorities shall act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Act and Rules and shall ensure that the election process is conducted in accordance with law. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioners themselves do not seek stoppage of the ongoing election process. Their grievance is confined to certain objections raised by them with regard to the manner and procedure of conducting the election. The said objections are essentially required to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Ayurvedic, Unani Tatha Prakritik Chikitsa Vyavasayi Act, 1970 and the Rules framed thereunder. 7 9. It has also been submitted on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 that one of the objections raised by the petitioners has already been taken into consideration and the necessary measures have been adopted. With regard to the remaining objections, the competent authority has undertaken to consider the same and take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 10. In view of the aforesaid submissions and undertaking, no useful purpose would be served in interfering with or staying the ongoing election process at this stage. It is made clear that the election process shall not be stalled on account of the filing of the present petition and the same may proceed in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. 11. At the same time, the competent authorities shall duly consider the objections raised by the petitioners, to the extent they are required to be considered at this stage of the election process, and take appropriate consequential steps strictly in accordance with the applicable Act, Rules and procedure governing the election. 12. It is further made clear that if, during the course of the election process, any act or omission is found to be contrary to the provisions of law, the petitioners shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse before the competent authority in accordance with law. 8 13. It is also made clear that if, after completion of the election, any grievance survives in respect of the election process or any alleged illegality or irregularity, it shall be open to the petitioners to raise such grievance before the competent forum/authority, which shall consider the same in accordance with law. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the objections raised by the petitioners. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 15. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha