1 CGHC010355462026 2026:CGHC:41214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4802 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 It's Secretary, Near D. K. S. Bhawan, Old Mantralaya 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.) AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.09.30 16:32:31 +0530 2 9 - Kapil Nath Suryawanshi, R/o Village - Nagoi, Tahsil - Beltara, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 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 the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Sudeep Verma, Advocate For State :- Mr. Priyank Rathi, G.A. For Respondent No. 2 :- Mr. Priyanshu Ojha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For Caveator :- Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 22.09.2026 1. Following reliefs have been prayed in 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 17.08.2026 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 direct the Collector & District Election Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)/Election Tribunal (respondent no.3) to conduct the proceedings of Case No. 1/A-89/2024-25/202505072100013 strictly in accordance with law; 10.4 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court thinks fit & proper as per the facts & circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 17.08.2026 passed by the learned Election Tribunal is unsustainable in law, having been passed without proper consideration of the pleadings and the applicable provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, particularly Rule 11 thereof. He submits that during the pendency of the election petition, the Tribunal has permitted recounting of votes, which amounts to granting a substantive relief at an interim stage, without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity to lead evidence and contest the allegations raised by respondent No.6. It is further submitted that the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous assumption that the petitioner had consented to the course adopted by the Tribunal, whereas no such consent was ever given. Upon coming to know of the order, the petitioner immediately raised an objection on 27.08.2026. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has thereby been deprived of a fair opportunity to defend the election petition and to adduce oral and documentary evidence, in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that an order directing recounting of votes cannot be passed mechanically and that the person challenging the election is required to establish the necessary factual foundation by cogent material before such an extraordinary course is adopted. The impugned order, according 4 to learned counsel, does not disclose adequate reasons or proper application of mind and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the petition and submits that the order passed by the learned Election Tribunal is an interlocutory order passed in the course of adjudication of the pending election petition and does not finally determine the rights of the parties. It is submitted that the Tribunal has acted within the scope of its jurisdiction and in accordance with the applicable election law while dealing with the issue of recounting. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has an adequate opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the Election Tribunal and to place his defence and evidence in accordance with law. The grievance regarding the alleged absence of consent and the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted can appropriately be raised before the Election Tribunal itself. It is, therefore, submitted that no interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is warranted at this stage and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The issue in hand already stands covered by various earlier pronouncements, therefore, in order to examine the case at hand with the lens of earlier similar pronouncements, it is appropriate to go through the order dated 31.08.2005 passed by this Court in the 5 matter of Parvatia vs. Padmini & Others {2005 SCC OnLine Chh 204}. Relevant paragraphs 8 to 14, 16 & 17, reads as under:- 8. Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Chironjilal v. S.D.O. Vijaypur {1996 (I) MPWN 109} after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh {(1967) 1 SCJ 762} held that merely on the basis of consent recount cannot be ordered Consent would not confer jurisdiction on the Specified Officer, case for recount has to be made out. 9. Similarly, in another matter Gajanand v. Ramchara {1997 (II) MPWN 3 }, the Court held that “it is well settled that the justification for an order for examination of ballot papers and recount of votes is not to be derived form hind sight and by the result of the recount of votes. Consent of parties cannot give jurisdiction to inspect ballots and recount”. 10. In the matter of Ramdeen v. State of M.P {2002 (3) MPHT 180}, M.P. High Court has held that the impugned order has been passed without recording the evidence, which cannot be allowed to stand, and directed the S.D.O. to record the evidence of both the parties as may be adduced and thereafter first to decide the question whether case has been made out for order of recount on the averments and the evidence adduced by the parties. 11. In the matter of P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen {AIR 1989 SC 640}, in para 15 of the judgment, the Apex Court has held that “an order of recount of votes must stand or fail on the nature of the avarments made and the 6 evidence adduced before the order of recount is made and not from the results emanating from the recount of votes”. 12. In the matter of Shri Scityanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh {AIR 1993 SC 367}, the Apex Court has held that: “It is settled proposition of law that the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be permitted to be tinkered lightly. An order of recount cannot be granted as a matter of course. The secrecy of the ballot papers has to be maintained and only when the High Court is satisfied on the basis of material facts pleaded in the petition and supported by the contemporaneous evidence that the recount can be ordered.” 13. In the matter of P.K.K. Shamsudeen (supra), in para 10 the Apex Court has held that: “Before examining the contentions of the parties we may set out the position in law as regards the need for the secrecy of the ballot being maintained and as to when the well established rule can be departed from. Since the principle of law has already been enunciated by this Court in several cases, we may refer to three of those decisions. In Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh, the appellant had challenged the election of the first respondent to the Punjab Legislative Assembly. In the recount of votes ordered by the Tribunal it was found that the appellant had secured 22,491 votes and the first respondent had secured 22,412, votes. The Tribunal allowed the election petition and declared the appellant to have been duly elected. The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and the 7 judgment of the High Court was confirmed by this Court. In doing so this Court observed as follows (at p.783 of AIR) “Therefore, in a proper case, the Tribunal can order the inspection of the ballot boxes and may proceed to examine the objections raised by the parties in relation to the improper acceptance or rejection of the voting papers. But in exercising this power, the Tribunal has to bear in mind certain important considerations. Section 83(I) (a) of the Act requires that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relied; and in every case, where a prayer is made by a petitioner for the inspector of the ballot boxes, the Tribunal must enquire whether the application made by the petitioner in that behalf contains a-concise statement of the material facts on which he relied. Vague or general allegations that valid votes were improperly rejected, or invalid votes were improperly accepted, would not serve the purpose which section 83(1)(a) has in mind. An application made for the inspection of ballot boxes must give material facts which would enable the Tribunal to consider whether in the interests of justice, the ballot boxes should be inspected or not. In dealing with this question, the importance of the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be ignored, and it is always to be borne in mind that the statutory Rules framed under the Act are intended to provide adequate safeguard for the examination of the validity or invalidity of votes and for their proper counting. It may be that in some cases, the ends of 8 justice would make it necessary for the Tribunal to allow a party to inspect the ballot boxes and consider his objections about the improper acceptance or improper rejection of votes tendered by votes at any given election; but in considering the requirements of justice, care must be taken to see that election petitioners do not get a chance to make a roving or fishing enquiry in the ballot boxes so as to justify their claim that the returned candidate's election is void.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. In the matter of Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar {(2004) 6 SCC 331}, in para 20, the Apex Court has held that: “It is well settled that an order of re-counting of votes can be passed when the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) a prima facie case; (ii) pleading of material facts stating irregularities in counting of votes; (iii) a roving and fishing inquiry shall not be made while directing re-counting of votes; and (iv) an objection to the said effect has been taken recourse to.” 16. Similarly, in the matter of Jibontara Ghatowar v. Sarbananda Sonowal {(2003) 6 SCC 452}, the Apex Court held that “Decision on, must be taken be Returning Officer based on prjma facie opinion formed in a reasonable manner in the facts and circumstances - when a case for re-count made out on the basis of averments made by election petitioner coupled with breach of statutory duty cast 9 on Returning Officer under R. 63 of Conduct of Elections Rules.” 17. Therefore, in view of the above, the settled legal position is that before ordering for recount, the learned Specified Officer was required to see as per Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1995’), whether the election petition (a) contains a concise statement of all material facts on which the petitioner relies and (b) set forth with sufficient particulars, the grounds on which the election is called in question, and also to satisfy himself based on the evidence of the parties after conducting the trial that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for recount on the basis of pleadings and evidence.” 6. When the case is examined in view of the afore cited judgment, it appears that the concerned Court has ordered for recounting of votes without recording evidence of the parties. Once the matter is seized by the Election Tribunal, unless and until, statement of witness are recorded or prima facie it appears that case is made out for interference in the matter for recounting and further there are materials showing irregularities in respect of counting of votes, roving and fishing inquiry shall not be made while directing recounting of votes and since in the instant case, evidence was yet to be recorded as such, prima facie impugned order passed for recounting of votes is without any considerable material 10 showing the need of the same. Even if consent has been given by the party, no order for recounting of votes can be ordered unless prima facie case is made out and there are material available on record to show that the order for recounting of votes is required to be made. 7. Accordingly, in light of the aforcited principles by Hon’ble Supreme court, impugned order dated 17.08.2026 passed by the Collector, Bilaspur C.G. is quashed/set aside and the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the election proceedings and to examine his witnesses as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner shall furnish the list of witnesses before the learned Election Tribunal and shall thereafter lead the evidence of such witnesses within the time prescribed by the Tribunal. 8. Upon the petitioner producing his witnesses, the learned Election Tribunal shall record their evidence and shall afford respondent No.6 an opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses. 9. Thereafter, upon completion of the cross-examination and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, the learned Election Tribunal shall, if considered necessary in accordance with law, pass an appropriate order with regard to recounting of votes. 10.The learned Election Tribunal is further directed to conclude and dispose of the election petition, in accordance with law, as 11 expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11.With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash/Vishakha