Summary
The Court held that an election petition seeking only recounting, without the declarations required by the Chhattisgarh election-petition rules, was not maintainable. Recounting may be ordered as part of a properly constituted election challenge, but it cannot replace the prescribed substantive relief. The Division Bench’s order setting aside the recount was upheld.
Issues
- Whether a Panchayat election petition seeking recount alone complied with the prescribed relief requirements.
- Whether Sohan Lal permitted such a petition without the required declarations.
Provisions considered
- Section 122, Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993An election challenge had to be brought by petition in the prescribed manner, including the relief structure laid down by the applicable election-petition rules. (¶¶ 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Rules 5 and 6, Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995The petition had to plead material facts and seek a declaration that the returned candidate’s election was void, with an additional declaration of another candidate’s election if claimed. Recount alone did not satisfy Rule 6. (¶¶ 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Rules 77(2) and 80(1) to (2), Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995The returning-officer recount mechanism requires a written application with grounds after announcement of votes. No written application was made here, but the Court separately recognised recount jurisdiction in a properly framed election petition. (¶¶ 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15)
Held
- Election disputes are statutory proceedings and must conform to the prescribed remedy and procedure. A petition under Section 122 must claim the substantive declarations contemplated by Rule 6; a request for recounting alone is insufficient. (¶¶ 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Sohan Lal permits a court or tribunal to direct recounting on the evidence in an appropriate election petition even if no earlier written recount request was made to the returning officer. It did not decide that an election petition seeking recount alone could omit the declarations required by Rule 6. (¶¶ 10, 11, 13)
- The appellant sought only recounting at three booths and made no written recount application under Rule 80. Whatever the evidence about inadequate lighting, the election petition lacked the required substantive relief and was not maintainable. (¶¶ 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
Result
Appeal dismissed. Division Bench decision setting aside the SDO’s recount order and the recount proceedings left undisturbed.