IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

th

ON THE 10 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 6126 of 2023 MEENA Versus SIYA RANI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Ruby Haldkar - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Somit Raizada - Advocate for respondent No.1.

ORDER The present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 27/02/2023 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Hata, District Damoh dismissing the Election Petition which was filed under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam, 1993') holding that prima facie petitioner has not established the case for recounting of votes and as such the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is without application of mind.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Government organized the Panchayat elections in the part District Damoh in Gram Panchayat Dhangunwa. Petitioner as well as respondents No.1 to 10 filed nomination papers for the post of Sarpanch. Polling was organised and after casting of votes, on 08/07/2022 counting was got done. Total votes polled were 1101.

Valid votes were 1013 and invalid votes were 88. The Returning Officer after counting of votes under Rule 81(1) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirwachan Niyam, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1995') had declared the results. Petitioner secured 233 votes and respondent No.1 secured 237 votes. She was declared as a successful candidate and issued the election certificate for the post of Sarpanch.

3 . Petitioner being aggrieved by the result has filed an Election Petition under Section 122 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 asking for recounting of votes and further made a prayer to declare her to be the elected candidate. Respondent No.1 and other candidates for the post of Sarpanch filed a reply and refused all the objections levied against her in the Election Petition. The Presiding Officer framed 8 issues and after adducing the evidence by the parties has finally decided the Election Petition on 27/02/2023 after hearing both the parties and dismissed the same which is put to challenge in the present petition on the ground that in paragraph 2 of the Election Petition, it was clearly pleaded that at the time of counting of votes there was a power failure and there was no alternative arrangement of electricity. The votes of the petitioner were counted by including the ballot papers of respondent No.1 due to which she was defeated by 4 votes. Despite of the clear pleadings in the Election Petition with respect to power failure, the same was not considered properly by the Presiding Officer. Rule 84 applies for re-counting of votes under the Rules, 1995. The Presiding Officer has observed that no application for re-counting of votes was filed before the Returning Officer in time. Merely the argument that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to test the votes as the margin of victory is only 4 votes and number of invalid votes is 88. Therefore, re-counting of votes would have materially affected the elections. It is argued that the principles of natural justice have not been followed by the Presiding Officer, therefore, rejection of Election Petition is illegal. She has prayed for quashment of impugned order.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order. It is submitted that a detailed and comprehensive order has been passed in the Election Petition by the Presiding Officer. 8 issues were framed by the Presiding Officer while dealing with the Election Petition. All the issues were categorically decided by the Presiding Officer. The election has been conducted in a free and fair manner as observed by the Presiding Officer. The evidence recorded during the Election Petition was minutely scrutinized by the Presiding Officer. He has categorically observed that no applicat