GIRIJA DEVI AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 10.08.2020 passed in case No.09/A-89(21)/2019-20 by the respondent No.3. Vide the said impugned order, the respondent No.3 has allowed the election petition setting aside the election of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jairam Nagar, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur.

(2.) The facts of the case is that, the election for the post of Sarpanch was conducted on 28.01.2020. The petitioner and the private respondents in the writ petition were candidates in the said election. The results of the election were declared on 28.01.2020. The petitioner was the winning candidate with a margin of more than 90 votes. The respondent No.6 preferred an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 on 12.02.2020. The notices were issued to the parties. The petitioner, the respondent before the election petition, appeared and submitted her reply on 26.02.2020 categorically denying all the allegations and contentions made in the election petition. Subsequently, for pretty long time, the proceedings before the election Tribunal did not take place because of the effect of Corona-19 Pandemic or the non availability of the presiding Officer and the matter for the first time was thereafter taken up on 05.08.2020 on which date since both the side did not lead evidence and expressed their unwillingness to lead evidence, the respondent No.3 closed the matter and the impugned order was passed on 10.08.2020.

(3.) The primary challenge to the impugned order is that the said impugned order is passed in total contravention to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (in short, the Rules, 1995). According to the petitioner, there is a specific procedure prescribed for the specified officer in the course of conducting the election petition. It is this provision which has not been adhered to before the impugned order was passed. The contention of the petitioner is that, after the reply with categorical denial being filed by the petitioner, it was required for the specified officer to proceed with the matter in accordance with procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby issues ought to have been framed on the disputed questions of fact and thereafter the parties should had been offered to lead evidence and then the specified officer after examining all the witnesses so adduced should have decided the petition issue-wise. While referring to the order sheets which have been enclosed along with the writ petition, it reflects that such procedure have not been complied with.