LEELA BAI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sustainability of the order dtd. 27/8/2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.1939/2020 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed writ petition and remitted back the case to the Election Tribunal i.e. respondent No.3 herein, for deciding the matter afresh after framing issues and after granting opportunity of hearing to the parties to lead evidence, is put to challenge in this writ appeal.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jairamnagar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur took place on 28/1/2020. Appellant along with private respondents herein contested the said election. After completion of counting of votes, result was declared in which respondent No.6 has been declared to be elected as she has secured total 1303 votes. Appellant secured second highest votes i.e. 1213. On 31/1/2020 appellant filed an objection before the Returning Officer with regard to irregularity in counting of votes and thereafter filed an election petition under Sec. 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1993') before the Sub Divisional Officer (R), Masturi i.e. respondent No.3, with a prayer for recounting of votes. Respondent No.6 filed reply to election petition filed under Sec. 122 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 denying the pleadings made therein. Apart from reply, respondent No.6 also filed preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of election petition on the ground that election petition has not been filed in accordance with the provisions contained under the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules of 1995'). The Presiding Officers of different polling booths of Gram Panchayat Jairam Nagar had also submitted their reply to election petition and denied the pleadings made therein.

(3.) During the course of proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer (R), Masturi, District Bilaspur, it is recorded in the proceeding dtd. 5/8/2020 that the parties requested to pass the order on the basis of pleadings, documents and written submissions as they do not want to lead any evidence and accordingly, the respondent No.3 allowed the prayer of the parties and fixed the case for orders on 10/8/2020. The proceeding dtd. 5/8/2020 reads thus:-