Chhattisgarh HC Keeps Mahasamund Panchayat Election Challenge Alive Despite No Booth Recount Request; Recount Issue Remains For Tribunal to Decide

The petitioner, the returned candidate in the Zila Panchayat election for Election Area No. 01, challenged the rejection of his application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC to dismiss respondent No. 7’s election petition.

Respondent No. 7 sought, among other reliefs, recounting of votes and pleaded discrepancies in the counting and tabulation records for several booths.

He had applied to the Collector on 4 March 2025, and the Collector declined recounting the following day on the ground that he lacked authority to do so.

The petitioner argued that the election petition was not maintainable because respondent No. 7 had not requested recounting at the relevant booth during counting, as required by Rule 80 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995.

Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC permits rejection where the pleadings disclose no cause of action or show that the proceeding is barred by law; the inquiry is confined to the petition read as a whole, with its material averments assumed to be true, and the defence or disputed evidence is not considered.

Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, Karam Singh v. Amarjit Singh, Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju v. Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy, and Ashraf Kokkur v. K.V. Abdul Khader support these principles.

In election cases, Kimneo Haokip Hangshing v. Kenn Raikhan states that an election petition should not be rejected at the threshold where there is substantial compliance with the applicable requirements.

Rule 80 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 regulates recounting; sub-rule (5) generally bars a recount application after announcement of the votes and completion and signing of the result sheet, subject to its proviso.

The court treated the effect of that rule and the cited recounting precedents as matters for the Election Tribunal’s determination on the complete pleadings and applicable law.

Respondent No. 7 pleaded specific discrepancies in the counting and tabulation records, including alleged alterations or errors at Booth Nos. 55, 79, 80 and 82, and explained that the discrepancies became apparent during later tabulation.

Whether those discrepancies occurred, affected the result, or legally justified not seeking recounting during counting required examination of the records and evidence; they could not be resolved on an Order VII Rule 11 application.

Although Rule 80 and the petitioner’s authorities could bear on the ultimate entitlement to recounting, the petitioner had not shown that the election petition was, on its face, barred by law.

The Collector’s refusal to recount for want of authority likewise did not itself establish a bar to the election petition.

It dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order rejecting the Order VII Rule 11 application.

The Election Tribunal was directed to decide the election petition in accordance with law, independently and without being influenced by the High Court’s observations on the merits.