Smt. Pushpa Sonkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 357 Chatt

                                                1




                                                                                    NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                   WPC No. 445 of 2022

     Smt. Pushpa Sonkar W/o Dharmendra Sonkar Aged About 28 Years R/o Gaura
     Chow, Sonkar Para, Village Khudmuda, Post Sankra, Tehsil Patan, P.S.
     Amaleshwar, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
                                                              ---- Petitioner
                                           Versus
     1.      State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural
             Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,
             New Raipur Chhattisgarh.
     2.      The Chhattisgarh State Election Commission, Shashtri Chowk, Raipur
             Chhattisgarh.
     3.      The Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue) Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
     4.      The Returning Office (Panchayat), Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
     5.      Smt. Anita W/o Dharmendra Aged About 45 Years Bhatapara, Mahuda
             Road, Village Bhatapara, Mahuda Road, Village Khudmuda, Post Sankra,
             Tehsil - Patan, P.S. Amaleshwar, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

                                                                     ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 & 4 : Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocate

Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 21/01/2022

1. The present writ petition has been filed questioning the the rejection of

the objection which the petitioner has raised in respect of the candidature

of the respondent No.5 for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat

Khudmuda, Tehsil Patan, District Durg.

2. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be that they have objected to the

social status of the petitioner as she has been contesting against a

reserved post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category. According to the

petitioner, the respondent No.5 did not have the requisite certificate to

establish that she belongs to the scheduled tribe category and without

any prima facie document available with the respondent No.5, she is

contesting the election and her nomination also has been accepted

inspite of the objection raised by the petitioner.

3. Perusal of the pleadings would show that the polling for the said post of

Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Khudmuda has already been held on

the 20.01.2022 as such the election itself has been held. Under the

circumstances, it would be difficult for the writ Court at this juncture to

exercise the writ jurisdiction questioning the candidature of the

respondent No.5. The petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the

appointment of the respondent No.5 if she is successful under Section

122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

4. The view of this Court stands fortified from the decision taken by the

Division Bench of this Court in W.A No. 71/2020 decided on 29.01.2020

wherein in paragraph No. 18 & 19 has held as under:-

"18. The legal position stands clear as declared by the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) and Avtar Singh Hit (supra) to the effect that, once the election process starts, there cannot be any interference by any Court of law and the remedy if at any to the aggrieved party is to have the same challenged by way of an 'election petition'. It is in the said context, that Section 122 of the Act, 1993 is incorporated in Act No.8 of 2003, whereby challenge can be raised by way of an election dispute. This has been declared as the proper course as per the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.3540 of 2019 (Manoj Kanseri v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) decided on 02.12.2019 as well as Writ Appeal No.40 of 2020 (State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. v. Balluram Sahu & Ors.) decided on 14.01.2020, which have been relied on by the learned Single Judge to decline interference.

19. In the above circumstances, we are of the firm view that this is not a matter for interference invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is always open for the Appellant/Petitioner to move the Competent Authority by raising an election dispute in terms of Section 122 of the Act, 1993. However, if any such election dispute is raised by the Appellant, the same shall be considered by the Competent Authority and it shall be finalized after hearing the interested parties in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of the election petition as aforesaid."

5. Given the fact that the petitioner has a remedy available to challenge the

election of the respondent No.5 in case if she is successful, the writ

petition at this juncture would not be maintainable. For the aforesaid

reasons, the writ petition sans merit and is accordingly rejected.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved