Strict compliance with presentation procedures for election petitions under the Representation of People Act is essential, and non-compliance can result in dismissal.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Thangkhiew, J. - The instant application has been filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 86 of the Representation of People Act read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the Gauhati High Court Rules (as adopted by the High Court of Meghalaya).

2. The grounds taken in the instant application are that the Election Petition is ex-facie barred by Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, being filed in violation of Section 81 , 82 83 of the said Act, the High Court of Meghalaya Rules, and also barred by law within the meaning of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

3. It has been submitted by Mr. S. Sahay, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent, that the election petition is liable to be dismissed as it failed to meet the requirement of filing of an election petition as stipulated by law. Reference has been made to Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India that prescribes that (i) election can only be challenged by way of election petition; (ii) and such election petition must be presented to the authorized authority (iii) and such presentation must be done in the manner prescribed under the law. In this regard it has been submitted that the law as framed for presentation, is contained in Section 81 of the RP Act, the contravention of which, entails outright dismissal as provided in Section 86 of the said Act.

4. Further contention has been raised that as the Meghalaya High Court Rules, 2013 has adopted the procedure with regard to the presentation of election petitions from the Gauhati High Court Rules, which in this case is to be before the Stamp Reporter, the non-compliance thereof, would be violative of Section 81 (1) of the RP Act, read with Rule 1 under Chapter VIII A of the High Court Rules. In the instant case, it is argued that the election petitioner has not controverted the allegations that the petitioner had not presented the election petition before the Stamp Reporter personally, and that the reply to the instant application is silent on material particulars regarding the details of such presentation. It has been further submitted that there is no endorsement of the Stamp Reporter in the petition and that the report of the Stamp Reporter does not show that the petition was personally presented by the election petitioner. In support of these arguments, reliance has been placed on the following cases:-

i) G.V. Sreerama Reddy vs. Returning Officer (2009) 8 SCC 736

ii) Abdul Jabbar vs. Syeda Anwara Taimur Ors. (1986) 1 GLR 257

iii) Jamal Uddin Ahmed vs. Abu Saleh Najmuddin Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 257

5. It has been submitted that as the petition has not been presented personally by the election petitioner, and that in reply to the instant application, only bald averments have been made without any material particulars, there is no necessity that evidence be led to substantiate this contention. It is also submitted that evidence can be led only if there is a pleading to this effect, and the same not being present, apart from the Stamp Reporter's report not indicating that the petition was presented by the election petitioner, the argument that at the time of presentation, the election petitioner was only present in the campus, will not come to the aid of the election petitioner in any manner.

6. It has further been contended that Section 81 (3) of the RP Act has been breached, inasmuch as, the requirement that each and every copy of the election petition to be attested by the election petitioner under his own signature has not been met, while filing the election petition. To the arguments raised by the election petitioner, that this Court by order date