(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

C A V Order

1. By way of this Revision filed under Section 26 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 the applicant seeks to quash/set aside the order dated 7.5.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG) in Misc. Civil Suit No.1/2022.

2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the applicant, are that the applicant and Respondent No. 1 are elected ward members of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.). On 01.01.2022, the election proceedings were held, wherein as per the inspection note 9.5.2024, the applicant secured 10 valid votes, while respondent No.1 secured only 8 valid votes and 2 invalid votes. However, as stated in the plaint, the applicant secured 10 valid votes, whereas respondent No.1 secured 9 valid votes and 1 invalid vote. It is alleged that respondent No.2 illegally counted an invalid note in favour of respondent No.1 and subsequently, in violation of the prescribed rules, resorted to a lottery system. Due to a conspiracy between respondent No.1 and other respondents, Respondent No.1 was declared elected as the President of the Nagar Palika. Thereafter, the applicant raised an objection in this regard before the competent authority and also submitted a written objection before respondent No.3. Subsequently, he also filed an Election Petition before the trial Court.

3. The respondents filed their written statement denying the pleadings of the applicant and prayed for dismissal of the election petition. During the trial, the applicant examined herself and Gyanendra Singh Thakur, Additional Collector (PW-2). Respondent No.1 Smt. Navita Shivhare examined herself and Anil Kumar Khatik (DW-2). Subsequently, the predecessor trial Judge conducted an inspection of the ballot box on 09.05.2024, recorded in accordance with Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962. The Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Election of President & Vice President) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 1998") govern the ballot box and the method of voting. The said Inspection Note was recorded by the learned trial (District) Judge in presence of all parties, wherein it was observed that although Smt Navita Shivhare received 10 votes, only 8 votes were marked in accordance with Rule 10 (4) of the Rules 1998, while 2 votes failed to comply with the mandatory marking requirements of the said Rule. However, while passing the impugned order, the trial Judge completely overlooked the judicial inspection note dated 9.5.2024. Since Section 23 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (in short “the Act, 1961”), prescribes a summary procedure for election petitions, the absence of minute details cannot override substantive evidence already forming part of the record, particularly the Inspection recorded by the trial Court itself. Furthermore, the trial Court while relying upon the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 (in short “the Niyam, 1994”), observed that the applicant had not raised any objection during the counting of votes. The trial Court manifestly ignored the evidence presented by the petitioner and passed the impugned order. Hence, this Revision.

4. Mr. Hemant Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court erroneously dismissed the Election Petition primarily on the ground that Gyanendra Singh Thakur (PW-2) in para 6 of his cross-examination admitted that the identity of the voters was not revealed in respect of two votes nor in respect of remaining eighteen votes. The findings of the learned trial Court are contrary to settled law and statutory rules. Where specific statutory provisions exist, the Returning Officer is mandated to strictly follow the prescribed procedure. In the present case, the Returning Officer (PW-2) counted the votes arbitrarily and in violation of the applicable rules and law. He fu