Chattisgarh High Court
Laxmi Kattam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 September, 2025
1/4
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5067 of 2025
LAXMI KATTAM versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.
Order Sheet
22/09/2025 Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Kabeer
Kalwani, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG along with Ms. Upasana
Mehta, Dy. GA and Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, PL for the
State.
Heard on I.A. No.1/2025, which is an application for
grant of Ad-interim writ.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that
the crucial question of law in this case is that whether the
election petition filed by the respondent before the
Respondent No.2 i.e. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Konta, District Sukma, C.G. seeking relief of recounting of
Digitally
signed by
ASHUTOSH
votes only, without seeking any other reliefs i.e. declarations
ASHUTOSH MISHRA
MISHRA Date:
2025.09.22
16:42:43
+0530
as contemplated in Rule 6 of the C.G. Panchayats (Election
Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for
Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the
Rules, 1995) was mandatory or not?
Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
vehemently argued that as per the application filed under
Section 122 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993
dated 07/03/2025 (Annexure P/2) the private Respondent
No.4 Aas Jogi is only seeking relief for recounting of votes
and no consequential relief has been sought by her i.e. a
declaration that the election of all or any of the returned
candidates is void; and in addition thereto, a further
declaration that she herself or any other candidate has been
duly elected. He would next contend that in absence of the
same the impugned order passed by the concerned authority
i.e. the SDO (R) is not maintainable under the law. In
support of his contention learned senior counsel would place
reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Dharmin Bai Kashyap Vs.
Babli Sahu and Others {(2023) 10 SCC 461} wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if a party having failed
to seek relief of declarations as required under Rule 6 of the
Rules, 1995, the election petition filed by the petitioner
before the Sub Divisional Officer (R) seeking relief of re-
counting of votes alone was not maintainable.
Learned State counsel contended that the petitioner
himself has not appeared before the concerned Sub
Divisional Officer (R), therefore, the concerned SDO (R) has
rightly passed the order.
Issue notice to Respondent No.4 on payment of
process fee as per rules.
Learned State counsel is directed to file reply.
Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the
case, particularly the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Dharmin Bai Kashyap (supra), purely as an interim
measure the effect, operation and implementation of the
impugned order dated 15/09/2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by
the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Konta, District Sukma,
C.G. passed in Appeal Case
No.202503190400002/A-89/Section 122/2024-2025 {Aas
Jogi Vs. Laxmi Kattam & Another} shall remain stayed till
the next date of hearing and this Court has formulated the
question of law that "Whether without seeking relief under
Rule 6 of the Rules, 1995 only the relief of recounting of
votes alone would be maintainable or not?".
Accordingly, the I.A. No.1/25 stands disposed of.
List after service report of Respondent No.4 is
received.
Certified copy today.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
ashu
