Case Law Details
(1) Invoking provisions contained in Section 26(2) of The Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘Act of 1961’) read with Rule 19(2) of The Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called as ‘Rules of 1962’), the election petitioner, petitioner herein has preferred this revision calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 15.10.2015 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur in M.J.C. No. 114/2015 by which learned District Judge/Election Tribunal has dismissed the election petition instituted by the petitioner herein under Section 20 read with Section 22 of the Act of 1961 and declined to the election of respondent herein/Vice-President Office of Nagar Panchayat, Bodri District Bilaspur as null & void.
(2) The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop:-
(2.1) Election for the office of Vice-President of Nagar Panchayat, Bodri, District Bilaspur was held on 19.01.2015 wherein the respondent stood declared as successful candidate. Election petition being M.J.C. No.114/2015 was filed on the ground that one vote, which was cast in favour of election petitioner had wrongly been declared invalid by Presiding Authority in course of counting of votes.
(2.2) The election petitioner, by filing election petition, pleaded inter alia that Nagar Panchayat, Bodri has 15 Wards; and election of Nagar Panchayat, Bodri was held on 4.1.2015 in which 15 councillors were elected and the President was also elected by direct election and, as such, 15 councillors + 1 President = total 16 candidates were eligible to cast their votes to elect Vice President in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Election of Vice-President) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter called as ‘Rules of 1998’). It was further pleaded that in accordance with the Rules of 1998, election of Vice President was held on 19.01.2015 and in that election, the election petitioner as well as the returned candidate, the respondent herein, stood as candidates by filing their nomination papers and the Tahsildar, Bilha was appointed as Presiding Authority for polling of the said election. On the same date, in presence of Presiding Officer, votes were counted and in such counting, the election petitioner secured seven valid votes whereas the respondent secured eight valid votes and one vote was declared invalid by the Presiding Authority holding that one of the councillors has not put ‘X’ mark in required column of the ballot paper.
(2.3) Immediately thereafter, election petitioner made a representation that one such vote has been declared invalid illegally and that be counted in his favour, but it was not done and result was declared and the respondent herein was declared elected as returned candidate.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
