Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
NELSON SAILO, J.
K. Pawhnie S/o K. Rahmo – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Mizoram and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 131 of 2022
Decided On : 22-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Juliana Lalhmangaihi.
IMPORTANT POINT
False declarations in election affidavits are grounds for disqualification under the MADC Conduct of Business Rules, constituting corrupt practices.
Headnote:
Election - Disqualification - MADC Conduct of Business Rules - The Court interpreted the provisions regarding corrupt practices and disqualification, concluding that false declarations in election affidavits constitute grounds for disqualification under the relevant rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the election of the respondent No. 6 as MDC, alleging corrupt practices due to false declarations in his election affidavit regarding educational qualifications, which were later proven to be untrue.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondent No. 6 had made false declarations in his affidavit regarding his educational qualifications, which amounted to corrupt practices under the MADC Conduct of Business Rules, warranting disqualification.
Issues: Whether the election of the respondent No. 6 as MDC should be declared void due to false declarations in his election affidavit and whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition despite the existence of alternative remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that false declarations in election affidavits constitute corrupt practices under the MADC Conduct of Business Rules, leading to disqualification, and that the Court retains jurisdiction to hear the writ petition despite alternative remedies.
Result: The election of respondent No. 6 as MDC is declared void and the notification regarding his election is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
NELSON SAILO, J.
1. Heard Mr. C Tlanthianghlima, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. C Zoramchhana, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and Mr. B Lalramenga, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 & 8. None appears for respondent Nos. 5 & 7 despite notice.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is before this Court with the following prayer:
“In the premises, it is most humbly prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issue rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the election of the Respondent No. 6 as MDC from 02-Phura Constituency should not be declared as void and illegal and why he should not be disqualified as MDC since he is guilty of corrupt practice, undue influence and fraud by filing a false affidavit in his Election Affidavit dt.13/4/2022 (Annexure-6) in clear violation of MADC (Constitution, Conduct of Business, etc.) Rules, 2002 and against the Order dt. 5/4/2022 (Annexure-4) passed by the Respondent No. 4 and as to why the impugned Notification dt. 10/5/2022 (Annexure-9) issued by the Respondents shall not be set aside and quashed to the extent that it had illegally declared the Respondent No. 6 as elected MDC from 02-Phura Constituency and after hearing the parties be further pleased to make the rule absolute by allowing the writ petition and directing the Respondents to declare the Petitioner as duly elected from 02-Phura Constituency and to pass any other orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.
In the interim, be further pleased to restraint the Respondent No. 6 from functioning as MDC from 02-Phura Constituency and restrain him from attending any sessions of the 12th MADC during the pendency of the writ petition.”
3. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner is that the Governor of Mizoram, on the recommendation of the State Election Commission (SEC) called upon every constituency under the Mara Autonomous District Council (MADC) to elect a member of the MADC in accordance with the MADC (Constitution, Conduct of Business, etc.) Rules, 2002 (Conduct of Business Rules) and orders made by the SEC vide Notification dated 14.02.2022 issued by the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, vide Notification dated 05.04.2022, the SEC notified specific dates and time in respect of the election in each of the constituency and by an order of the same date, the SEC issued further direction regarding the modalities of the nomination paper to be submitted accompanied by affidavits to be sworn by each candidate contesting the election.
4. Accordingly the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 6 & 8 filed their nomination papers for contesting the election from Phura constituency while also submitting the required affidavits with their respective particulars. The affidavit of each candidate were displayed in the notice board of the District Election Office, Siaha as per Order dated 05.04.2022 issued by respondent No. 4. The petitioner upon seeing the declaration of respondent No. 6 with regard to his educational qualification in particular, became suspicious as he was known to him since a long time back. He even approached the Election Office, Siaha and verbally enquired about the matter to clear his doubt. However, since the respondent No. 6 did not enclose his mark sheets or certificates in support of his educational background in his affidavit, the petitioner could not be provided with any concrete document to clear his doubt.
5. As scheduled, polling was conducted on 05.05.2022 and thereafter, the results of the election was notified on 10.05.2022 by the SEC wherein, the respondent No. 6 was declared to be elected from Phura constituency. As for the respondent No. 8 and the petitioner, they secured the 2nd highest and 3rd highest votes for the said constituency. Thereafter,
