IMPORTANT POINT
Election Tribunals must adhere to procedural rules, including issue formulation and evidence recording, to ensure fair adjudication of election disputes.

ORDER :

(Parth Prateem Sahu, J.)

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

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) and the petitioner may be allowed to continue to hold the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat – Bhitthikala, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja, Chhattisgarh for the remaining period of her tenure.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and appropriate.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Election Tribunal/Respondent No. 2 where, the election petition filed by the Respondent No. 5 was allowed and the election of the petitioner was declared to be void.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Election Tribunal while considering the election petition filed by the Respondent No. 5 has not followed the due procedure as prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Rules, 1995). He contended that at the time of filing of the election petition, the election petitioner has not deposited the requisite fee along with the election petition and overlooking the same, the election petition was admitted and is ultimately been allowed. In absence of the requisite fees, the election petition could not have been admitted and allowed as filed by the Respondent No. 5. He also contended that the election petition was filed beyond the period of limitation and therefore, the election petition ought to have been dismissed at the threshold on the ground of limitation. Specific plea has been taken in the reply also, however, the Election Tribunal without following the due procedure as prescribed under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995 without framing issues and recording of evidence of the parties have decided the election petition which is also contrary to the provisions prescribed under the Rules, 1995 and therefore, the impugned order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) be set-aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5 submits that the petitioner after filing of the reply became ex parte and therefore, the Election Tribunal based on the material available has decided the election petition. However, he do not dispute the submission of the counsel for the petitioner based on the Rule 11 of the Rules, 1995.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner along with the Respondent No. 5 contested the election of Sarpanch, Village Panchayat – Bhittihikala, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja, Chhattisgarh in which the petitioner became successful and was elected as Sarpanch. Her election was questioned by the Respondent No. 5 by way of filing an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. The election petition was filed on 04.03.2020. From the pleadings made in the reply as discussed in the impugned order, it appears that the returning officer issued the election certificate on 31.01.2023 and the petitioner has also raised the ground with regard to the maintainability of election petition and ground of limitation and further that the election petitioner has not deposited the requisite fees as mandated under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995.

7. Perusal of the order-sheets placed on record by the counsel for the Respondent No. 5 would show that the issues based on the pleadings made by the respective parties has not been formulated, and is also not reflecting from the impugned order dated 22.11.2021. The submission of counsel for the petitioner that the Election Tribunal has not formulated the isssues before proceeding with the reply is not disputed by the counsel for the Respondent No. 5 based on the order-sheets placed on record. The petitioner who was non-ap