JUDGEMENT

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. The present writ appeal is against the order dated 6/01/2022 passed in WPC No.9/2022 wherein the petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The challenge was made to the removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of village Semarkona, District Mungeli, by an order dated 31/12/2021.

2. The brief facts of this case are that an election for the post of Sarpanch was held on 28/01/2020 wherein the appellant and the respondent No.4 primarily they were the contesting candidates. After the election, the counting of votes was done on the same day and result was declared on the same day and lastly a certificate was issued whereby the appellant Babli Sahu, the appellant was held to be elected.

3. Subsequently, an election petition was filed before the SDO (Revenue) with a prayer to recount the votes of polling booth Nos.3, 4 and 5 of gram panchayat Semarkona. In such election petition, the election tribunal by its order dated 18/10/2021 directed for recount of the votes of the Sarpanch in said booths. The said order was subject of challenge before the learned Single Bench in WPC No.4384/2021 wherein this Court by order dated 08/11/2021 quashed the order of 18/10/2021 and directed that the proceeding be decided in a election petition in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995 within a specified time. It is under those circumstances the witnesses were examined in the election petition by the contesting parties. After the examination of the statement, initially order dated 20/12/2021 was passed whereby the SDO has directed for recount of the votes. The said order was also subject of challenge by the appellant in WPC No.5548/2021, however before the hearing of the said writ petition, the order of removal of petitioner dated 31/12/2021 was passed. On 31/12/2021, recounting of votes was carried out and the appellant's vote was reduced from 404 to 400 whereas the votes of respondent No.4 herein Dharmin Bai Kashyap remained to that of earlier one of 403. In a result, Dharmin Bai Kashyap the respondent No.4 herein was declared elected Sarpanch. The appellant herein challenged the said order under different grounds.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in a election petition under Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam as per the Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, specified relief is required to be claimed i.e. declaration of the election of returned candidate is void and in addition thereto further declaration is required to be claimed to declare petitioner or other contesting candidates as wining candidate. He would submit that the petition before the election tribunal was only confined to recounting of votes without following the mandate of Rule 6 of Rules, 1995, as such the petition itself was not maintainable only for recount of votes. He would further submit that in the process of recount, the validity of the votes secured by the appellant was gone into and the number of votes secured by the appellant from 404 was reduced to 400 whereas the number of votes secured by the respondent who was subsequently declared elected remained the same as 403. He placed reliance in a decision rendered by this court reported in 2013(1) CGBCLJ 99 and would submit that this Court has reiterated the principle rendered in a case of Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal reported in (2009) 10 SCC 541 which laid down that the candidate who won the election should not be lightly interfered with and any petition seeking such interference must be strictly confirmed to the requirements of the law. He would submit that the learned Single Bench has failed to take into account those facts and has dismissed the petition, thereby the instant appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, Dharmin Bai Kashyap would submit that the order of recount is implicit. He would submit that as per the l