Election petition maintainability depends on strict statutory compliance; a bare recount plea without required declarations is not maintainable.

An election petition challenging a panchayat election must strictly comply with the prescribed statutory form and relief structure under the governing Rules. The Supreme Court noted that Section 122 requires a petition to be presented in the manner prescribed, and Rule 6 confines relief to a declaration that the returned candidate's election is void and, where appropriate, a declaration that the petitioner or another candidate is duly elected. Although recount may be ordered on evidence in a properly framed petition, a petition seeking only recount of votes without the mandatory declarations is not maintainable. The absence of a written recount request under Rule 80 further weakened the claim for recount.

---

---

Issues: Whether an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 was maintainable when it sought only recount of votes without claiming the declarations contemplated by Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995.

Analysis: Section 122 permits an election to be called in question only by a petition presented in the prescribed manner, and the prescribed manner includes the contents and reliefs set out in Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules of 1995. Rule 6 limits the reliefs to a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void and, in addition, a declaration that the petitioner or another candidate has been duly elected. Although recount can be directed in an appropriate election petition on the evidence, the petition itself must still conform to the statutory form and the relief structure prescribed by the Rules. Election law is subject to strict construction, and where the statute prescribes the manner of doing a thing, it must be done in that manner alone. A petition confined only to recount of votes, without the statutorily required declarations, was therefore not maintainable. The absence of a written recount request under Rule 80 of the Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 also weakened the claim for recount.

Conclusion: The election petition seeking recount of votes alone was not maintainable, and the challenge to the impugned election result failed.

Ratio Decidendi: When election law prescribes a special remedy and a specific manner for challenging an election, the petition must strictly comply with the prescribed statutory form and reliefs, and a prayer confined only to recount without the mandatory declarations is not maintainable.

---