2023 (8) TMI 1602 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Election Petition filed by the Petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer (R) seeking relief of recounting of votes alone, without seeking any relief Under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1995 was maintainable? HELD THAT - It is well settled principle of law that 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. It is also well settled salutary principle that 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. In Cherukuri Mani w/o. Narendra Chowdari v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 2014 (5) TMI 1227 - SUPREME COURT , it is observed that where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, Section 122 of the said Act provides that an election under the said Act could be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner. The manner prescribed is in the Rules of 1995. Rule 5 pertains to the contents of the election petition and Rule 6 thereof pertains to the relief that may be claimed by the Petitioner . In the said Rule 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. Conclusion - The Petitioner having failed to make any application in writing for re-counting of votes as required Under Section 80 of the Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, and having failed to seek relief of declarations as required Under Rule 6 of the Rules of 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. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered by the Supreme Court in this judgment was whether the Election Petition filed by the Petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) seeking the relief of recounting of votes alone, without seeking any relief under Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, was maintainable.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

- Relevant legal framework and precedents

The legal framework involved includes Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, which allows an election to be called into question by a petition presented in the prescribed manner. The Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, specifically Rule 80, outlines the procedure for recounting votes. Additionally, the Rules of 1995, particularly Rule 5 and Rule 6, specify the contents and reliefs that may be claimed in an election petition. The case of Sohan Lal v. Babu Gandhi was cited, which discussed the permissibility of directing a recount after the declaration of results.

- Court's interpretation and reasoning

The Court emphasized that the statutory provisions relating to election law must be strictly construed. It highlighted that Rule 6 of the Rules of 1995 mandates that an election petition must seek specific declarations, namely that the election of the returned candidate is void and, optionally, that another candidate has been duly elected. The Court reasoned that merely seeking a recount without these declarations is insufficient and not in compliance with the statutory requirements.

- Key evidence and findings

The evidence presented included the Petitioner's claim of insufficient lighting during the vote counting process, leading to the initial recount order by the SDO. However, the Respondent argued that no formal written request for a recount was made during the counting process, as required by Rule 80 of the Nirvachan Niyam, 1995.

- Application of law to facts

The Court applied the statutory requirements of Rule 6 to the facts, finding that the Petitioner's election petition was deficient because it only sought a recount without the necessary declarations. The absence of a written request for a recount during the counting process further weakened the Petitioner's position.

- Treatment of competing arguments

The Court considered the Appellant's reliance on the Sohan Lal case, which allows for recounting in certain circumstances. However, it distinguished the present case by emphasizing the procedural requirements of Rule 6, which were not met by the Petitioner. The Respondent's argument that the petition was not in consonance with Rule 6 was upheld.

- Conclusions

The Court concluded that the election petition was not maintainable as it failed to comply with the procedural requirements under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1995. The appeal was dismissed.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning

"In view of Section 122 and the Rules, we are unable to agree with the ratio laid down in Ram Rati case... It is not correct to hold that, in an election petition, after the declaration of the result, the court or tribunal cannot direct re-counting of votes unless the party has first applied in writing for re-counting of votes."

"The main reliefs that may be claimed in the Election Petition have to be the reliefs as envisaged in Rule 6 of the said Rules of 1995."

- Core principles established

The judgment reinforced the principle that election petitions must strictly adhere to statutory requirements, including the reliefs specified under Rule 6. It also emphasized the necessity of following prescribed procedures for recount requests.

- Final determinations on each issue

The Court determined that the Petitioner's election petition was not maintainable due to non-compliance with Rule 6, and the appeal was dismissed. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules in election disputes.