Citation : 2003 Local Law (CG) 25
The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside an order of the Election Tribunal that had annulled the election of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Puchheli, held on February 1, 2000. Justice Prakash Chandra Naik delivered the order, ruling that the alleged wrongful acceptance of a nomination did not materially affect the election outcome.
The petitioner, who had been declared elected as Sarpanch, secured 251 votes in the election. His closest rival, respondent No. 2, received 175 votes, while respondent No. 3 obtained 66 votes. Following the results, respondent No. 2 filed an election petition challenging the petitioner’s victory, arguing that the acceptance of respondent No. 3’s nomination was illegal and that it had impacted the final result.
The Election Tribunal had agreed with this contention and set aside the election on November 14, 2000, holding that respondent No. 3’s nomination was improperly accepted since he belonged to the Ghasiya community and not to the reserved backward category.
When the matter reached the High Court, Justice Naik examined the vote counts and concluded that even if all 66 votes cast for respondent No. 3 had instead gone to respondent No. 2, the total would still be 241—ten votes fewer than the petitioner’s total of 251. On that basis, the court held that the acceptance of respondent No. 3’s nomination could not be said to have materially affected the result.
The court therefore quashed the Election Tribunal’s order and restored the petitioner’s election as Sarpanch of Puchheli. The bench also declined to award costs, directing that the original records be returned to the State.
This judgment reinforces the legal principle that an election result can only be invalidated if an irregularity has materially affected the outcome, not merely because a technical error occurred during the nomination process.
Case Details : Writ Petition No. 44 of 2000, Budhram vs. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Ors. (23.06.2003)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Ashish Shrivastava, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Ranbir Singh, Govt. Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 7, B.D. Guru, Adv. for Respondent No. 2
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 – Rule 22
======
निर्वाचन – चुनाव को चुनौती – प्रतिवादी क्रमांक 2 द्वारा याचिकाकर्ता के निर्वाचन को चुनौती देते हुए एक निर्वाचन याचिका दायर की गई थी। निर्वाचन न्यायाधिकरण ने यह याचिका स्वीकार करते हुए चुनाव को इस आधार पर निरस्त कर दिया कि प्रतिवादी क्रमांक 3 के नामांकन पत्र को अवैध रूप से स्वीकार किया गया था।
निर्णय: न्यायालय ने यह पाया कि प्रतिवादी क्रमांक 3 निर्वाचित घोषित नहीं हुआ था अर्थात् वह चुनाव हार गया था। अतः उसके नामांकन पत्र के अवैध स्वीकृति को चुनाव के परिणाम पर “भौतिक रूप से प्रभाव डालने वाला” नहीं माना जा सकता।
इस आधार पर उच्च न्यायालय ने निर्वाचन न्यायाधिकरण के आदेश को निरस्त करते हुए याचिकाकर्ता का चुनाव बहाल कर दिया।
परिणाम: चुनाव याचिका निरस्त। याचिका स्वीकार की गई।
