Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

15.05.2026

1 By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to issue an appropriate writ by

quashing the impugned order dated 01.04.2026

(Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.

3.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to call for the record from the Election

Tribunal for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to direct the learned Election Tribunal/

SDO revenue Giroud for deciding the election

petition after recording the evidence of parties

in the matter.

10.4 Any other relief, which may be suitable in

the facts and circumstances of the case, may

also be granted.”

2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.3 contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat in the year 2025, wherein respondent No.3 was declared elected. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 committed corrupt practices during the election process inasmuch as the nomination form submitted by respondent No.3 did not bear her original signatures and was allegedly signed by some other person. Though objection in this regard was raised before the Returning Officer, the same was not considered and respondent No.3 was permitted to contest the election.

3 Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 before the learned Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Election Tribunal, Gariyaband, seeking setting aside of the election of respondent No.3 and declaration of the petitioner as duly elected candidate.

4 It is further the case of the petitioner that after filing of reply by respondent No.3, the Election Tribunal framed issues in the matter and the petitioner also filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking examination of the disputed signatures of respondent No.3 through handwriting expert, undertaking to bear all expenses thereof. However, without recording evidence of the parties and without adjudicating the issues framed in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, the Election Tribunal dismissed the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and simultaneously closed the election petition in a mechanical manner vide impugned order dated 15.04.2026. Hence, the present petition.

5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Election Tribunal is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short ‘Adhiniyam, 1993’) as well as the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (in short ‘Rules, 1995’). He submits that though the Tribunal had framed issues in the election petition, it proceeded to dismiss the petition without recording evidence of the parties and without returning findings on the issues so framed.

6 He further submits that the petitioner had specifically raised allegations of corrupt practice against respondent No.3 on the ground that the nomination form did not bear her original signatures and, therefore, an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was filed seeking examination of the disputed signatures through handwriting expert, which was essential for proper adjudication of the controversy involved in the election petition. However, the said application was rejected and simultaneously the election petition itself was closed in a mechanical manner without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence.

7 It is also submitted that the procedure adopted by the Election Tribunal is in clear violation of Rules 11 and 12 of the Rules, 1995 and contrary to the set