This election petition has been filed by the unsuccessful candidate in the election held on 16.2.1995 to the Manipur Legislative Assembly from 51 Saitu (ST) Assembly Constituency, seeking a declaration office election of the returned candidate Mr, Ngamthang Haokip as void on the ground of corruption charges, and further for a direction to conduct fresh election of the said constituency.

2. General Election of the Manipur Legislative Assembly was held on 16.2.1995. Petitioner alongwith other 7 (seven) candiddates contested from 51 Saitu (ST) Assembly Constitutency. Result was declared on 23.2.1995, declaring the respondent No. 1 elected. The votes secured by each of the contestants are as follows:

"(a) AlarThoitak 7303

(b) Haokholet 5765

(c) John 12

(d) Lundolung 31

(e) Ngamthang Haokip 9673

(f) Panmei Bonthaolung (respondent No. 1) 106

(g) S. L. Paokhosei 2199

(h) Thomas 26"

3. The grounds on which the election of the respondent No. 1 sought to be declared as void had been set forth in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition. Paragraphs 8 and 9 reads :

"That, the petitioner asserts that the election of the respondent No. 1 is void and is liable to be declared void on the following grounds :

(1) That, the respondent No.1 himself and through his election agents and other persons acting with his active consent and connivance committed the corrupt practice of undue influence in the form of-

(a) Terrorising and extending threats, and harassing to get submission of all voters, through the hostile/militant elements armed with fire arms, and Village Chief including armed persons employed by the respondent No.1;

(b) Kidnapping, beating and other criminal and coercive measures, taken against the innocent and law abiding voters residing in the said Constituency;

(c) Employment of hostile/militant persons armed with sophisticated fire arms, to terrorise and obtain submission, as well as to prevent entry of the candidates, election agents of other candidates in several areas covered by several Polling Stations. The detailed particulars are set out below in part of the annexures;

9. That, the respondent No.1 himself and through his agents, election agents and other persons employed by him, acting with his consents committed the corrupt practices of bribery in the form of:

(a) Giving money in cash, in kind, etc, to several persons, including Village Chiefs, Clubs, etc;

(b) Paying/distributing money to the electors who would vote for him;

(c) Entertaining with meats, sweets, lunches, dinner, breakfasts, etc, in large scale to several thousands of voters with the object of securing their votes, etc. The detailed particulars and instances are set out below in part 1 of the annexure to the petition."

In support of the allegations made in paragraphs 8 and 9, detailed statement has been set out in statement No. 1 paragraphs 2 to 9.

4. Counter on behalf of the respondent No.1 has been filed. Respondent No. 1 specifically denied the each of the allegations contained in the details of statement No.1. On the basis of the application and the written statement, as many as eight issues have been framed on 14.5.1996. This Court also held that, issue Nos. 1 and 2 are in the nature or preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of election petition, and directed to be posted for hearing as a preliminary issues. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 reads :

"1. Whether the election petition is liable to be rejected for not setting forth full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice as required under section 83 (1) (b) of RP Act, 1951?

2. Whether the election petition is liable to be rejected for non compliance on the part of the petitioner with the provisions of section 83 (1) (c) and section 83 (2) of the RP Act, 1951?"

5. Jhe sole question that arises for determination at this stage is, whether election petition is lible to be rejected on account of non disclosure of material facts as required by section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter tfie Act). Section

Click Here to Read the rest of this document