LexDHARMIN BAI KASHYAP versus BABLI SAHU & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
150 [2023] 11 S.C.R. 150 : 2023 INSC 712 CASE DETAILS DHARMIN BAI KASHYAP v. BABLI SAHU & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 2517 of 2023) AUGUST 16, 2023 [BELA M. TRIVEDI AND S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Whether the election petition ο¬ led by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Oο¬ cer seeking relief of recounting of votes alone, without seeking any relief under Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualiο¬ cation for Membership) Rules, 1995 was maintainable. Election Laws β Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualiο¬ cation for Membership) Rules, 1995 β r.6 β Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner βElection of Sarpanch β Election petition ο¬ led before the Sub Divisional Oο¬ cer u/s. 122 seeking relief of recounting of votes alone, without seeking any relief u/r. 6 β Maintainability of: Held : Where a right or a liability is created by a statue, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statue must be availed of β Furthermore, if a Statue provides for doing a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner β s. 122 provides that an election under the said Act could be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner β Manner prescribed is in the Rules of 1995 β In r. 6, it has been provided that the petitioner may claim a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void; and in addition, thereto a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected β In view of thereof, in the Election Petition ο¬ led u/s. 122, the reliefs claimed have to be in consonance with the r. 6 β The court or tribunal may direct re-counting of votes in the Election Petition, depending upon the evidence laid down by the parties in the Election 151 DHARMIN BAI KASHYAP v. BABLI SAHU & OTHERS Petition β Petitioner having failed to make any application in writing for re- counting of votes as required u/s. 80 of the 1995 Act, and having failed to seek relief of declarations as required u/r. 6, the Election Petition ο¬ led by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Oο¬ cer seeking relief of re-counting of votes alone was not maintainable β Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 β Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995. [Para 13 and 15] Election laws: Statutory provisions relating to election law β Interpretation of: Held: Jurisprudence on the subject mandates strict construction of the provisions β Election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but purely a statutory proceeding, provision for which has to be strictly construed. [Para 15] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Sohan Lal vs. Babu Gandhi and Others (2003) 1 SCC 108 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 333 β relied on. Ram Rati vs. Saroj Devi and Others (1997) 6 SCC 66 : [1997] 3 SCR 1050; Cherukuri Mani w/o Narendra Chowdari vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2015) 13 SCC 722 : [2014] 6 SCR 750; Laxmi Singh and Others vs. Rekha Singh and others (2020) 6 SCC 812 β referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2517 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2022 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WA No.72 of 2022. Appearances: Sameer Shrivastava, Adv. for the Appellant. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sudhir Verma, Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Sourav Roy, Mahesh Kumar, Kaushal Sharma, Sunit Kumar Toppo, Ms. Devika Khanna, Mrs. V D Khanna for M/s VMZ Chambers, Advs. for the Respondents. 152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 11 S.C.R. JUDGMENT/ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. The aggrieved appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Writ Appeal No. 72 of 2022, whereby the Division Bench of High Court has allowed the said writ appeal and set aside the order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the Single Bench in W.P. (C) No. 09 of 2022. Consequently, the Division Bench has set aside the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Oο¬ cer and also the recounting of votes undertaken on 31.12.2021. 2. The bare summary of facts necessary for the purpose of deciding this Appeal are: - (i) 28.01.2020 β The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.