SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 5981

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
GAJENDRA MANJHI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPC/46/2023



A by-election for the post of Sarpanch should not be held while a revision case challenging the removal of the previous Sarpanch is pending.

Headnote:

ELECTION - BY-ELECTION - POST OF SARPANCH - REVISION CASE PENDING - BY-ELECTION NOT TO BE HELD TILL DECISION IN REVISION CASE

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an elected Sarpanch, was removed from the post under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. He appealed to the Collector and then filed a revision case before the Commissioner, which was admitted and was pending hearing. During this time, the State Election Commission ordered a by-election for the vacant post of Sarpanch. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that if the revision case was decided in his favor after the by-election, it would render the revision case infructuous and he would be remediless.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the by-election should not be held till the decision in the revision case. It relied on its earlier decision in Gauri Bai Dhurve v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, which held that where a revision petition challenging the removal of a Sarpanch is pending, the District Election Officer should not proceed with the by-election. The court reasoned that if a by-election were held and the revision petition were subsequently allowed, the revisional authority would be incompetent to restore the petitioner to the post of Sarpanch, as the post would already be occupied by a person elected in the by-election. The petitioner would then be deprived of his legal right to hold the post for its full term.

Issues: Whether a by-election for the post of Sarpanch should be held while a revision case challenging the removal of the previous Sarpanch is pending.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a by-election should not be held till the decision in the revision case, as it could render the revision case infructuous and deprive the petitioner of his legal right to hold the post of Sarpanch for its full term.

Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned notification ordering the by-election and directed the respondents to await the outcome of the revision case before proceeding with the by-election.

Order on Board

[06/01/2023]

1. Aggrieved by the Election Notice that has been issued by the Respondent No.2 - Chhattisgarh State Election Commission, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner.

2. The Petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mungiya. He in between was removed from the post of Sarpanch invoking Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Deobhog vide Order dated 31.3.2021.

3. Against the said Order dated 31.3.2021, the Petitioner had preferred an Appeal before the Respondent No.4 - Collector, District Gariyaband which stood dismissed vide Order dated 15.3.2022.

4. Thereafter, the Petitioner within a week's time had approached the Respondent No.3 - the Commissioner, Raipur Division by way of a Revision case. The said Revision case has already been admitted and is fixed for final hearing. The last date of hearing in the said Revision case was 12.12.2022 and the next date of hearing is

20.3.2023.

5. In between, the Respondent No.2 - the Chhattisgarh State Election Commission, considering the fact that the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Mungiya is vacant, has ordered for holding the By-election.

6. The Petitioner has therefore approached this Court challenging the said proceeding drawn by the Respondents No.2 to 4, contending that in the event if the said Revision case subsequent to the election stands allowed, it would be of no consequence, as the fresh election that would be conducted by holding By-election a fresh candidate would be elected as Sarpanch. This may also lead to the Revision case itself rendered infructuous. Under the circumstances, the Petitioner would be remediless and the Order passed under the provisions of Section 40 against the Petitioner may have an adverse consequence so far as the political career of the Petitioner is concerned. It is therefore necessary that the Revision case needs to be decided on its own merits before the election is conducted by the Respondents.

7. Learned State Counsel as also learned Counsel for State Election Commission refer to the provisions of Section 243-O of the Constitution of India, which provides for a bar for entertaining petitions pertaining to election in Panchayat. Moreover, the contention of the Counsels for Respondents is that since the post of Sarpanch is lying vacant since March' 2021, the Respondent No.3 was required to fill-up the post and it was in this context that the By-election has been notified.

8. The issue in the instant case has came up for hearing before this High Court in W.P.(C) No.1668/2018 [Gauri Bai Dhurve v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others] decided on 21.6.2018, wherein this Court dealing with all the judicial precedents on the subject-matter has held as under:-

"14. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute, as noticed herein-above, that the petitioners have questioned their removal firstly before the Collector and after dismissal of their appeal, they have questioned the same before the revisional authority under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1995 and it is pending active consideration after the revisions having been admitted and in one case, interim order has been granted in favour of the petitioner and as such, no casual vacancy has arisen in terms of Section 38(1)(a) of the Act of 1993 to hold bye-election for the said post of Sarpanch. The District Election Officer (Panchayat) ought to have awaited the outcome of the said proceeding by the revisional authority before proceeding to hold the bye-election, otherwise if bye- election is allowed to be held and in the meanwhile, the order of removal is set aside, the revisional authority would be incompetent to restore / reinstate them on the post of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in view of the fact that the post of Sarpanch is already occupied by a person elected on bye-election and the only remedy available to the petitioners / Sarpanch would be to file election petition in accordanc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top