Allowed

Annu Devi Anchal v. Smt. Anupama Singh Tilakchadi and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Nov 2012WPC/6560/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order where the Election Tribunal declared the petitioner's election as void and directed a vote recount. The Court held that Rule 6 restricts election petitions to declarations regarding the voidness of an election or the election of another candidate, not to vote recounting, and thus quashed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the final order dated 06.09.2011 and interim order dated 28.05.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer were quashed.

Annu Devi Anchal Vs Smt. Anupama Singh Tilakchadi and Ors. — Election Law | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

^ 'y^ C^(5^ °'£ ^MQB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR

¶4

¶5

CHHATTISGARH W.P.(C^NO. ^^n /2011 PETITIONER : Annu Devi Anchal, aged about 25 RESPONDENT No.2 years W/o. Rohit, R/o. Village Daldali, village Panchayat dondki, Block 85 Tahsil - Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1] Smt. Anupama Singh Tilakchadi, Aged 34 years, W/o. Shri Raghuraj Singh, R/o. Village Dondaki, Village Panchayat Dondki, Block Masturi, Tahsil Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ....fElection Petitioner) / 2] Anjali Devi Shriwas, aged about 33 years, W/o Akhileshwar Prasad, 3] ' Kaushilya Bai Kuwbhani, Aged about 63 years, W/o. Anjori Singh, /^ ^ 4]^ Gayatri Sonwani, aged 21 years, W/o. Shivraj. »\ v ^"/, >..:^. r" ./'^v\ 5] ^ Dashmat Khushal, aged about 30 years, W/o. Jairam Singh, ^y 6] - Bahura Bai Markam, aged about 32 ^•></^ ^•<^ ^ years, W/o. Dasheram 7-] Shakuntala Sinha, aged 37 years, ^''y^ W/o. Jagannath Prasad Res. No. 2 to 7 are R/o. Village Dondki, Block 85 Tahsil - Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 8] Kanti Bai Rai, Aged about 30 years W/o. Shrawan Kumar ^l^^^jfej 9] Bhukhaiya Rai, aged 39 years, W/o. %.c^/^-r^/ Laxman 10] Rameshwari Anchal, aged 26 years, W/o. Dilharan 11] Sukhin Anchal, aged 48 years, W/o. Kishan, All above Res.No. 8 to 11 are R/o. Village Daldali, village Panchayat Dondki, Block & Tahsil^-Masturi, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶6

!:}

¶7

.l2] Sub Divisional Officer/ Specified Officer, Bilaspur Distt Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE L CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶9

¶10

¶11

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR

¶12

WRIT PETITION (C)NO. 6560 OF 2011

PETITIONER

Annu Devi Anchal

Versus

RESPONDENTS Smt. Anupama Singh Tilakchadi & Others

¶17

(Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

¶18

Present:Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate forthe respondent No.1. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State.

¶19

ORDER (Passed on this 01st day of November, 2012)

¶20

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 06.09.201 1 (Annexure P-1) and interim order dated 28.05.2010 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur.

¶21

The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dondki, Block & Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur. The election ofthe petitioner was challenged by the first respondent praying that the election petition of the first respondent be accepted and the Presiding Officer be directed to recount the votes polled in the election, in accordance with law. The election Tribunal without verifying the provisions of Rule 6 of Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practice and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (forshort "the Rules, 1995"), admitted the petition and by impugned order declared the election of the petitioner as void and it was directed to handover the charge of Sarpanch to the first respondent. Case of the petitioner is that the election petition has to be decided strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. 3. The petition, challenging the election of office bearers, is maintainable only for two reliefs, as prescribed under Rule 6 of the

;.^^8g'j

Y"^J^^

....„.„..».^«»,.^^^ sought for a dedaration that the election of the petitioner be held as void and further declaration that she should be declared as elected.

¶30

The Tribunal without examining the provisions of law, pari:icularly whether such election petition was admissible or not for hearing, passed the order declaring the election of the petitioner as void and further declaring the first respondent as elected Sarpanch.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the procedure followed by the Tribunal cannot be flawed, as the Tribunal has already followed the procedure, as required under Rule 1 1 of the Rules, 1995.

¶32

The question of law involved in the instant petition is whether an election petition seeking recounting of votes can be entertained and thereafter, considering the totality of the facts, the election of the petitioner^{bedeclaredasvoid.} Further, the first respondent be declared as elected.

¶33

The Rules, 1995 was framed in exercise of power under Section 95(1) read with sub section 1 & 3 of Section 122 ofthe Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 inJune 1995. AfterbifurcationofthethenState of Madhya Pradesh, the State of Chhattisgarh adapted the Rules, 1995.

¶34

Rule 3 provides for presentation of election petition that an election petition shall be presented to the specified Officer 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. Rule 4 deals with the parties to the petition. Rule 5 deals with the contents of the petition. Rule 6 provides for relief that may be claimed by the

¶35

petitioner. For convenience Rule 6 ofthe Rules, 1995 is reproduced

¶36

as under:

¶37

"6. Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner :A petitioner may claim -

¶38

(a) a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates isvoid; and

¶39

(b) in addition thereto, a further declaration that he himself or any othercandidate has been duly elected.

¶40

On bare perusal of the Rule 6 of Rules, 1995, it is evident that the election petition may be filed only for seeking a declaration that the election of all or any ofthe returned candidate is void; and in addition thereto, a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, not for the counting of votes after election has been over. The petitioner has been declared as duly elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dondki, Block & Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur.

¶41

The election petition filed by the first respondent before the specified authority is annexed to this petition as Annexure P-4. The relief sought for by the petitioner is for recounting of votes polled in the election held on 03.02.2010 and further, for a direction to hold the recounting in accordance with law. For ready reference, the prayer of the election petition is quoted below:

¶42

"3TH: ^Tsf^TT t f^» a'T'Riaff 5KT 1EH^T STRTr^-^T ^t ^Tlcbi^ ^qr vyTT^? ^TPT q'TTPm ^^4?! ^" f^rf^ 03.02.2010 ^t ^fteRft-T srf^T^ 5KT c^^i^ f^ *ld^ul<11 ^t ^R^T f^TT uTT^? ^: p|^^|^|<< ^d^l"l'11 ^^ vtt^ ^T STT^T ^TTf^T ^^ ^t ^qT ^t'"

¶43

Law is well settled that the success of a candidate who has won at an

¶44

election should not be lightly interfered with and any petition seeking

^^••^

^ ^•^f^

such interference must strictly confirmed to the requirements of the law (See; Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal^).

¶50

Thus, admitting an election petition without complying with the statutory provisions and passing thereafter, an order declaring the election of the petitioner as void is erroneous and the same is unsustainable in law.

¶51

In view of foregoing, the final order dated 06.09.2011 (Annexure P-1) wherein the interim order dated 28.05.2010 (Annexure P-2) has merged, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur, is quashed.

¶52

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs.

¶53

ashot.

¶54

Sd/Satish K. Agnihotri Judge

¶55

1 (2009)108cc 541

Annu Devi Anchal v. Smt. Anupama Singh Tilakchadi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annu Devi Anchal v. Smt. Anupama Singh Tilakchadi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramchandra Sahu Vs the State of M.P. and Anr.

Goverdhan Prasad Gourha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Surguja Wood Products Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Raigarh Club and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Purushottam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt. Indira Tripathi Vs State Bar Council of Cg and Ors.