The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a civil trial-like procedure, including the framing of issues, recording of evidence, and deciding preliminary objections, in the trial of election petitions under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Rules of 1995.

ORDER :

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 11.3.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Specified Officer (Panchayat) in Appeal Case No.202003080100002/B-121/ 2019-20.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Baiharsari. Respondent No.1 filed an election under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (henceforth 'the Adhiniyam, 1993') questioning election of petitioner inter alia on the ground that petitioner has encroached upon the government land by raising construction thereon; he had suppressed material particulars of criminal case registered against him while furnishing information with his nomination paper. On service of notice of election petition, petitioner filed reply denying all adverse allegations in election petition. Petitioner also moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for dismissal of election petition for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules of 1995'). Arguments were heard on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 06.01.2021 and it was fixed for order on objection/application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Instead of deciding said application, the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Specified Officer passed the impugned order and removed the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under the provisions of Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. It is observed by the SDO that petitioner has encroached upon the government land and as such he is guilty of misconduct in discharge of duties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 11 of the Rules of 1995, prescribes procedure to be followed on receipt of an election petition, according to which, an election petition has to be enquired into in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure is to be decided after holding trial. After submission of reply by petitioner herein denying all adverse allegations levelled in election petition, the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum- Specified Officer was required to proceed with the matter in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules of 1995 and should have framed the issues, recorded evidence of the parties and granted opportunity for cross-examining the witnesses, if any. However, the Specified Officer without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1995 i.e. without framing issues; recording evidence of the parties and giving opportunity for cross-examining the witnesses, has passed the order impugned removing petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. The manner in which election petition has been decided by the Specified Officer is absolutely contrary to the procedure prescribed under Rules 11 of the Rules of 1995 and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Specified Officer is liable to be set aside. He further contended that the Specified Officer has treated the election petition as an application under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and passed the impugned order, which is also bad in law. He also contended that during pendency of election petition petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC seeking dismissal of election petition on the ground that Rule 3 (1) & (2) of the Rules, 1995 have not been complied with. The Specified Officer once heard arguments on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, should have decided that application first because had that application allowed, the entire election petition would have been dismissed. Hence, the impugned order be quashed, the matter may be remitted back to the election tribunal for deciding the election petition afresh in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that allegation against the petitioner is of suppression of material information while submitting nomination paper, which was found correct in