Court Rules Absence of Recount Request at Counting Stage Does Not Mandate Rejection of Election Petition When Pleadings Raise Triable Issues
In a significant judgment delivered on November 3, 2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Nayan Patel, the returned candidate for Member of Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund, challenging the Election Tribunal's refusal to reject an election petition filed against him. The election petition, brought by Hitesh Chandrakar, contested the election results on grounds of alleged discrepancies and irregularities in vote counting at Polling Booth No. 187.
The petitioner, Nayan Patel, had sought dismissal of the election petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) on the basis that no request for recounting of votes was made by the petitioner or his authorized agent during the counting process on February 23, 2025, as mandated under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995. This argument was supported by precedent decisions, including those by the Supreme Court of India, emphasizing the requirement of seeking recount at the appropriate stage.
However, the High Court, presided over by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, emphasized the limited scope of rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Court held that while deciding such an application, the Tribunal can only examine the averments in the election petition and documents relied upon therein, not the defense or disputed facts. The petitioner's absence of a request for recount at the time of counting was not decisive since the petitioner, Chandrakar, had pleaded specific discrepancies discovered only after obtaining the certified tabulation chart post-counting.
The Court noted that the election petition contained detailed allegations regarding discrepancies between the calculation chart and the tabulation chart, overwriting in official election records (Proforma-19), and irregularities in the recording of votes. These material facts raised triable issues requiring substantive adjudication. The District Election Officer had also acknowledged discrepancies and observed the need for recounting but declined authority to order it.
Rejecting the writ petition, the Court clarified that the merits of the allegations and the ultimate entitlement to relief such as recounting or declaring the election void were matters for the Election Tribunal to decide on evidence. The Court underscored that the election petition was not ex facie barred by law and disclosed a cause of action, thus not warranting rejection at the threshold.
This judgment reinforces the principle that election petitions should not be summarily dismissed on procedural grounds if substantial issues of fact are raised. The decision directs the Election Tribunal to proceed with adjudication in accordance with law, ensuring thorough examination of the election dispute.
Bottom Line:
Election dispute - Rejection of election petition under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC - While considering rejection at threshold, only averments in election petition and documents relied therein can be seen - Absence of request for recounting at time of counting does not by itself justify rejection of election petition when specific pleadings regarding discrepancies in tabulation chart, calculation chart and overwriting in election records raise triable issues.
Statutory provision(s):
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, Section 122 Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, Rule 80 Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995
Nayan Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3010321
