Dismissed

Gajpal Chandrakar v. Girish Kumar Chandrakar

Chhattisgarh HC3 Dec 2024WPC/2938/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Election petition over rejection of a Sarpanch candidacy for non-enclosure of a No Dues Certificate had been dismissed by the prescribed authority; the High Court reviewed the evidence and guidelines, found no proof the certificate accompanied the nomination paper, and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gajpal Chandrakar Vs Girish Kumar Chandrakar — Election Law | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 6

2024:CGHC:47829

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Order Reserved on 22.08.2024 Order Delivered on 04.12.2024

¶6

WPC No. 2938 of 2022

¶7

1 - Gajpal Chandrakar S/o Jhumuk Chandrakar Aged About 43 Years Caste - Kurmi, R/o Village Kharhatta, Tahsil Pandaria District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Election Petitioner)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Girish Kumar Chandrakar S/o Ashok Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kharhatta, Tahsil Pandaria, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Ashwani Chandrakar S/o Ashok Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kharhatta, Tahsil Pandaria, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Smt. Ranu Chandrakar Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kharhatta, Block Pandaria, District–Kabirdham,Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Sanjay Vishwakarma Returning Officer (Panchayat), Janpad Panchayat Pandaria And Tahsildar, Pandaria, District – Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Prescribed Authority (Gram Panchayat), Pandaria, District – Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

7 - The Collector District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Digitally SHUBHAM signed by DEY SHUBHAM DEY

¶19

2 / 6

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashim Bhagwat Gopal, Advocate For Respondents No. : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate 1 to 3 For Respondents No. : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General 5 to 7/State

¶21

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶22

C A V ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶24

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Prescribed Authority (Village Panchayat) Pandariya, District – Kabirdham in Case No. 01-A 58/2019-20 whereby, the Respondent No. 5 has dismissed the election petition filed by the petitioner under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Adhiniyam, 1993) .

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner submitted his nomination form to contest the election on the post of Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Karhatta on 02.01.2020. His nomination paper was rejected at the time of scrutiny by the Respondent No. 4 on the ground that the petitioner has not attached No Dues Certificate. Petitioner along with his nomination paper has enclosed the No Dues Certificate after obtaining it from the Secretary of the Village Panchayat Karhatta, however, even then, his nomination paper was arbitrarily rejected only to benefit the returning candidate. After rejection of nomination paper, the Respondent No. 1 withdrew his nomination paper and Respondent No. 2

¶27

3 / 6

¶28

was elected as non-contested Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Karhatta. Aggrieved with the arbitrary action on the part of the Returning Officer, rejecting the nomination paper, petitioner filed election petition under Section 122 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. The prescribed authority dismissed the election petition holding that the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of Section 31 (A) 3(A) of the Panchayat Election Rules, 1995 (as amended on 2019), not submitted No Dues Certificate. Returning Officer has not committed any illegality or irregularity in rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner.

¶29

He submits that the impugned order dated 31.05.2022 is illegal, perverse and erroneous. The prescribed authority failed to appreciate the documentary and oral evidence brought on record by the respective parties in an appropriate manner. The Election Tribunal failed to appreciate that the nomination form of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner has not attached/enclosed No Dues Certificate which is not correct, as the petitioner has attached the No Dues Certificate duly issued by the Respondent No. 4 and on the date of submission of the nomination paper, no dues was pending against the petitioner. It is also the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the Election Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of Sanjay Vishwakarma, the then Tehsildar and Returning Officer in which, he admitted that the nomination form of the petitioner was rejected on account of non-enclosure of the No Dues Certificate along with nomination form, but he has not enquired about any dues pending against the petitioner.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State vehemently opposing the submissions of counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Election Tribunal upon due consideration and appreciation of the evidence brought on record has clearly recorded that the No Dues

¶31

4 / 6

¶32

Certificate is not enclosed along with the nomination paper of the election petitioner/petitioner. From the evidence also, it is not proved that the petitioner submitted No Dues Certificate along with the nomination paper. The Election Tribunal further took note of the Chhattisgarh State Election guidelines and held that according to Clause 3 क, candidate submitting nomination paper to contest the election has to submit in the specified form No Dues Certificate issued by the Panchayat and also observed that the petitioner has not complied with Rule 31, 31 (A) or 33 of the Nirvachan Niyam,1995 and dismissed the election petition. There is no illegality in the order impugned dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P/1).

¶33

Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 3 also vehemently opposes the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) adopting the submissions of the counsel for the Respondent/State.

¶34

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner submitted an application for taking additional documents on record in which he submitted the copy of the nomination paper enclosed along with other documents including evidence of the election petitioner recorded by the prescribed authority.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents placed before this Court for perusal along with the writ petition.

¶36

Perusal of the Affidavit under Order 18 (4) and his cross-examination would show that he had submitted an application for obtaining certified copies of the nomination form and other documents on 03.03.2020 vide Ex. P/3. The copies of the nomination paper and other documents were supplied. Copy of the No Dues Certificate is marked as Ex. P/4. Perusal of the said document enclosed along with the application for taking

¶37

5 / 6

¶38

additional document would show that the certified copy stated to have been obtained, appears to have been obtained from the proceedings/record of the election petition. Certified copy of his nomination paper from the Returning Officer is not obtained. Perusal of the impugned order dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) does not reveal that the petitioner submitted any application calling for the nomination paper submitted by him before the Returning Officer for proving the same in evidence. No such argument and plea has been raised before this Court also.

¶39

10.The Election Tribunal has taken note of Rule 31 of the Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 which provides for nomination of the candidates. The Election Tribunal has further taken note of the guidelines issued with respect to the submission of documents along with nomination form where, it is mentioned that the No Dues Certificate issued by the Panchayat to be enclosed along with the nomination paper. The said requirement under the guidelines of submission of No Dues Certificate is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. In absence of proof by cogent and clinching piece of evidence brought on record by the petitioner that the petitioner submitted No Dues Certificate along with the nomination paper, no relief as prayed for in the election petition can be granted.

¶40

Merely, if in the statement of one witness namely Smt. Ranu Chandrakar, (the earlier Secretary of the Village Panchayat Karhatta) which is based on assumption, she has not produced any relevant register before the Election Tribunal. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the evidence brought on record by the election petitioner/petitioner, the pleadings made in the election petition that the election petitioner/petitioner submitted No Dues Certificate issued by the Village Panchayat is not proved as required under the law. Further, the Election

¶41

6 / 6

¶42

Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the No Dues Certificate is not submitted along with the nomination paper.

¶43

12.For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the prescribed authority dismissing the election petition. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of substance which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶44

Sd/Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶45

Dey

Gajpal Chandrakar v. Girish Kumar Chandrakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gajpal Chandrakar v. Girish Kumar Chandrakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhattisgarh Samvaad Vs M/S Shri Ram Printers and Stationers

Chhattisgarh Samvaad Vs M/S Kaiyumi Printing Press

Krishna Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jairam Vs Durga Bai

Gyan Chand Jaiswal Vs Om Prakash Jaiswal

Rakesh Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt. Nita Dubey