DR. SURENDRA MISHRA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
- Court
- Chhattisgarh High Court
1
CGHC010328702026 2026:CGHC:38779
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4418 of 2026
1 - Dr. Surendra Mishra S/o Harihar Prasad Mishra Aged About 40
Years R/o O B/2, Vaishali Nagar, Post Kusmunda, Vikas Nagar
Kusmunda, Post Gevra Basti, District Korba Chhattisgarh
Digitally
signed by
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
2 - Ajit Kumar Pandey S/o Arun Kumar Pandey Aged About 40 Years
R/o Beside Rallash Enclave Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Tehsil And
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Bhuvan Bhaskar Sahu S/o Dayashankar Sahu Aged About 32 Years
R/o Ward No. 04, Bazaar Para, Sonhat, Sonhat, Koriya, District Koriya
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary/ Secretary,
Department Of Ayush, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Director/ Competent Authority Ayush, Government Of Chhattisgarh,
Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Registrar Chhattisgarh Ayurvedic, Unani Tatha Prakritik Chikitsa
Parishad, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - Returning Officer/ Chief Election Officer Election Concerning
2
Chhattisarh, Ayurvedic, Unani Tahta Prakritik Chikitsa Parishad, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners :- Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate
For State :- Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G.
For Respondents No. 3 & 4 :- Mr. R.S. Marhas, Senior Advocate
through V.C. along with Ms. Shruti
Bariar, Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order On Board
02.09.2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, questioning the legality, fairness and
impartiality of the ongoing election process concerning the
Chhattisgarh Ayurvedic, Unani Tatha Prakritik Chikitsa Parishad.
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioners are registered Ayurvedic
medical practitioners and eligible voters in the aforesaid election.
Their principal grievance is with regard to the manner in which the
ballot papers have been designed and the procedure adopted for
their collection, custody and preservation prior to counting.
According to the petitioners, the ballot papers bear identifiable
Serial/Kramank Numbers which can allegedly be correlated with
the records maintained in relation to individual voters. It is
contended that such identification creates a reasonable
apprehension that the electoral choice exercised by a particular
3
voter may become identifiable, thereby compromising the secrecy
of the ballot. The petitioners have further raised objection to the
procedure prescribed/adopted for collection, handling and custody
of the ballot papers after voting and before counting. According to
them, the existing arrangement does not provide for an
independent, secure and verifiable chain of custody indicating the
person receiving the ballots, the persons having access thereto
and the manner in which the ballot papers are to be secured until
the counting process. The petitioners have also raised an
objection regarding the appointment of the Returning Officer. It is
stated that the Returning Officer appointed to conduct/supervise
the election is himself a registered Ayurvedic medical practitioner
and an eligible voter in the same election. Though no allegation of
misconduct has been made against him merely on account of
such status, the petitioners contend that, particularly when
considered along with their objections regarding identifiable ballot
papers and their custody, his dual capacity gives rise to a
reasonable apprehension of conflict of interest and lack of
institutional impartiality. It is further the case of the petitioners that
they had submitted representations and objections before the
Returning Officer as well as the competent authorities, including
the AYUSH authorities, during the subsistence of the election
process, pointing out the aforesaid irregularities and
apprehensions. According to the petitioners, however, no effective
corrective measure has been taken by the concerned authorities.
4
The petitioners apprehend that if the election process is permitted
to proceed to counting and declaration of the result, consequential
rights and liabilities may accrue in favour of the elected
candidates, thereby creating further complications and rendering
the challenge to the disputed election procedure more difficult. In
the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners have approached this
Court seeking, inter alia, stay of the ongoing election proceedings
and preservation in sealed and secure custody of all ballot papers,
Serial/Kramank Number records, voter-issuance registers and
other connected election records. The petitioners have further
prayed that, in the event this Court finds the existing election
procedure to be vitiated, the election be conducted afresh in a fair,
transparent and secure manner under independent supervision.
For the purpose of such fresh election, the petitioners have also
sought, to the extent permissible under the applicable statutory
provisions and rules, provision of neutral polling facilities in each
Revenue Commissioner's Division, preferably at designated
District Collector Offices or other suitable Government premises,
together with official custody of ballot boxes, a documented chain
of custody and supervision by an independent Returning Officer
who is not personally interested in the election.
3. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:-
“10.1 Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to
Call for the relevant original election records, if
5
deemed necessary, for examination of the
petitioners' grievance;
10.2 To direct the respondent registrar to perform
mandatory statutory duties provided in the Act 1970
and Rules 1973 and decide the objections raised by
the petitioner before proceeding further to conduct
the election as per rule 6 r/w rule 9 subrule-3, r/w
rule 13 subrule-4 and decide the objection raised by
the petitioners and Hon'ble High Court may further
direct the registrar to proceed with election only
upon deciding of the objection filed by petitioner as
per rule the Chhattisgarh Ayurvedic, Unani Tatha
Prakritic Chikitsa Vyavasayi Rules 1973.
10.3 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble
Court may also be granted in favour of the
petitioners.”
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the outset,
submits that the petitioners do not seek to stall or stop the
ongoing election process. He submits that the objections raised by
the petitioners are limited to certain aspects of the election
procedure and that the said objections may be considered by the
competent authorities in accordance with the applicable provisions
of the Act and the Rules. It is submitted that the petitioners would
be satisfied if the authorities are directed to consider and decide
their objections in accordance with law while permitting the
election process to proceed.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4
submits that one of the objections raised by the petitioners has
6
already been considered by the competent authority and
necessary measures have been taken in that regard. So far as the
remaining two objections are concerned, it is submitted that the
same shall also be duly considered and appropriate steps, if
required, shall be taken in accordance with law. It is further
submitted that the objections raised by the petitioners shall be
duly considered by the competent authority in accordance with the
applicable statutory provisions and Rules.
6. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State
submits that the authorities shall act strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the applicable Act and Rules and shall ensure that
the election process is conducted in accordance with law.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
8. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it
is apparent that the petitioners themselves do not seek stoppage
of the ongoing election process. Their grievance is confined to
certain objections raised by them with regard to the manner and
procedure of conducting the election. The said objections are
essentially required to be considered by the competent authority
in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Ayurvedic,
Unani Tatha Prakritik Chikitsa Vyavasayi Act, 1970 and the Rules
framed thereunder.
7
9. It has also been submitted on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4
that one of the objections raised by the petitioners has already
been taken into consideration and the necessary measures have
been adopted. With regard to the remaining objections, the
competent authority has undertaken to consider the same and
take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
10. In view of the aforesaid submissions and undertaking, no
useful purpose would be served in interfering with or staying the
ongoing election process at this stage. It is made clear that the
election process shall not be stalled on account of the filing of the
present petition and the same may proceed in accordance with
the applicable provisions of law.
11. At the same time, the competent authorities shall duly
consider the objections raised by the petitioners, to the extent they
are required to be considered at this stage of the election process,
and take appropriate consequential steps strictly in accordance
with the applicable Act, Rules and procedure governing the
election.
12. It is further made clear that if, during the course of the
election process, any act or omission is found to be contrary to the
provisions of law, the petitioners shall be at liberty to take
appropriate recourse before the competent authority in
accordance with law.
8
13. It is also made clear that if, after completion of the election,
any grievance survives in respect of the election process or any
alleged illegality or irregularity, it shall be open to the petitioners to
raise such grievance before the competent forum/authority, which
shall consider the same in accordance with law. This Court has
not expressed any opinion on the merits of the objections raised
by the petitioners.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is
disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
15. No order as to costs.
sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha