The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that the bar on recounting applications under Rule 77(4) of the Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 applies only prior to the filing of an Election Petition, not after. Election Tribunals must consider recounting petitions on merits and cannot reject them summarily on procedural grounds. This judgment sets aside prior contrary approaches and provides binding precedent within Chhattisgarh on the treatment of post-election petitions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WA/669/2025 of GIRISH KUMAR GUPTA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH CNR CGHC010350302025 |
| Date of Registration | 09-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge (Concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Division Bench: Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh on interpretation of Rule 77(4) and approach to post-election recount petitions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Sets aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Election Tribunal; clarifies limits of Rule 77(4) |
| Type of Law | Electoral Law / Panchayat Election Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether an Election Tribunal can reject a post-declaration petition for recounting of votes based on Rule 77(4) of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, or must such petition be considered on merits? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The prohibition under Rule 77(4) of the 1995 Rules on entertaining recounting applications operates only before an Election Petition is filed, post-count, and does not apply to Election Petitions themselves. Once the election is over and the officers become functus officio, remedies against electoral irregularities—including recounting—must be sought through an Election Petition. The Election Tribunal is obligated to consider such petitions on their merits. Summary dismissal of such petitions on the basis of pre-election procedural bars is not sustainable. Orders to the contrary by the Tribunal and Single Judge are set aside, and the case is remanded for fresh adjudication on merits. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Interpretation of Rule 77(4) of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995; principles of election law allowing aggrieved candidates to seek recount through Election Petition post-results. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant and others participated in the election for member, Jila Panchayat (Constituency No.8). After the respondent was declared elected (elections held 17.02.2025), the appellant filed an Election Petition before the Director Panchayat seeking a recount. This petition was rejected summarily by the Tribunal on the ground that post-declaration, no application for recount can be entertained under Rule 77(4). The Single Judge upheld this. Appellant argued this was a misreading and the post-election challenge is maintainable. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Election Tribunals within Chhattisgarh, on the treatment of post-election recount petitions under the Panchayat Election Rules |
| Persuasive For | High Courts of other States interpreting similar panchayat election rules or functus officio provisions |
| Overrules | Impugned orders of Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2645 of 2025 and the Election Tribunal’s order dated 09.04.2025 |
| Follows | Principle that Election Petitions are the proper recourse after electoral officers become functus officio; interprets and distinguishes prior Supreme Court case law cited |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that the bar on entertaining recount applications post-election by officers under Rule 77(4) does not apply to Election Petitions filed with Tribunals.
- Election Tribunals must not summarily dismiss petitions seeking recount on procedural grounds after declaration of results.
- Establishes that post-election remedy for aggrieved candidates is properly through Election Petitions, which require adjudication on merits.
- Orders by Tribunals and Single Judges rejecting such petitions without full consideration can be challenged and set aside.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench examined the application and scope of Rule 77(4) of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995.
- The rule was interpreted to bar only those recounting applications presented to officers after results have been declared—not Election Petitions filed with Tribunals.
- The Tribunal and the learned Single Judge both erred by relying on Rule 77(4) to summarily dismiss the Election Petition, failing to consider its merits.
- The Supreme Court cases cited by the appellant (Vijay Bahadur; Mohit Kumar) were found to be distinguishable on facts and not directly controlling, but the general principle that post-election remedy is through Election Petition was affirmed.
- The court restored the Election Petition to its original number and remanded it for fresh consideration on merits, ordering due hearing to all parties.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Contended that the Election Tribunal and Single Judge misapplied Rule 77(4); the rule only bars recount applications in the pre-election petition stage.
- Argued that, after elections, the only remedy is to approach the Tribunal through an Election Petition, which must be heard and adjudicated upon on merits.
- Submitted that summary dismissal without trial is erroneous; full-fledged hearing with formulation of issues was required.
Respondent No. 2 (Election Commission):
- Armed that recounting is permissible only if an application is presented before the Returning Officer, and the officer is satisfied—this was not done.
- Asserted that, since no such pre-petition application was filed, recount was impermissible.
Factual Background
The appellant and several other candidates contested for the post of member, Jila Panchayat, Constituency No.8, District Surajpur. Elections were held on 17.02.2025, and respondent No.7 was declared elected. The appellant filed an Election Petition before the Director Panchayat on 19.03.2025 seeking a recount. The petition was rejected on 09.04.2025 based on Rule 77(4) of the 1995 Rules, which was also relied upon by the Single Judge in dismissing the subsequent writ petition. The appellant challenged the summary dismissal on the ground that once election is over, the Election Petition is the proper means of seeking recount.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 77(4) of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995: Interpreted to mean that after the declaration of results, officers (including Returning Officers) become functus officio and cannot entertain recount applications.
- The Court clarified Rule 77(4) applies only to pre-election petition stages, not to Election Petitions brought before Tribunals.
- The Election Petition Rules, 1960 and Rule 21 thereof were cited by the appellant to argue for maintainability of such petitions post-election.
- The Court did not adopt a narrow reading to bar all recount applications post-declaration, but clarified the proper channel is via Election Petition.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- No dissenting opinion; both judges agreed on the interpretation and conclusion.
- Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge, concurred with the Chief Justice.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment remanded the Election Petition for fresh consideration on merits, directing the Tribunal to afford a proper hearing.
- No new procedural guidelines or changes to burden of proof were formulated in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court affirms the established law that post-election remedies must be sought through Election Petitions and Election Tribunals must adjudicate such petitions on merits, clarifying misuse of Rule 77(4).