Heard Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Surendrajit, Advocate and Mr. P. Tamphamani, Advocate for the election petitioner. Heard Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Punam Kumari, Advocate, Mr. Sapam Biswajit, Advocate, Mr. Manav Vohra, Advocate and heard also Mr. H. Ishwarlal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/returned candidate.

2. The petitioner who had contested as a Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) candidate from the 27th Moirang Assembly Constituency in the 10th Assembly Election held in 2012 has challenged the election of the respondent who had successfully contested the election as an Indian National Congress (INC) candidate and seeking declaration of his election as void under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the “RP Act/Act”).

3. The gravamen of the complaint of election petitioner as pleaded in the election petition is filing of false affidavit by the respondent at the time of submission of nomination paper which according to the petitioner would entail in rejection of his nomination paper and, indulging in corrupt practices and electoral malpractices inviting disqualification. Of the aforesaid 2 (two) grounds raised, the election petitioner has abandoned the allegations of electoral malpractices and corrupt practices and has focussed his assailment on the filing of false affidavit which according to the election petitioner would render the nomination paper materially defective and hence, though was liable to be rejected under Section 36(2)(b) of the Act, was improperly accepted, thus, rendering it fit for declaring the election of the respondent as void under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the RP Act.

4. The 10th Assembly Election of the Manipur which was notified on 4.01.2012 was held on 28.01.2012. The scrutiny of the nomination papers was held on 12.01.2012. The petitioner states that at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers, the petitioner raised objections to the nomination paper submitted by the respondent and sought for rejecting his nomination paper on 3 (three) grounds, viz.:-

(i) that the respondent failed to file proper affidavit prescribed under Article 173 of the Constitution of India;

(ii) that the affidavit filed by the respondent was a false one, as he had falsely deposed at para No.9 of his affidavit dated 06.01.2012 submitted along with the nomination paper that his highest educational qualification is “MBA, 2004, Mysore University” which according to the petitioner is false and, that the respondent at para No. 5 had put the word “Nil” in respect of residential building and concealed parts of his homestead land and structure;

(iii) that the affidavit was filed without subscribing oath or affirmation before the Returning Officer.

5. The petitioner claims that in view of the aforesaid defects and false information provided in the affidavit filed by the respondent along with the nomination paper the petitioner requested the Returning Officer for rejecting the nomination paper of the respondent. On such objection being raised, the Returning Officer directed the respondent to furnish/produce the documents in support of his affidavit pertaining to passing of MBA in 2004 from Mysore University on the next date of the scrutiny on 13.01.2012. On the next date fixed on 13.01.2012, the respondent failed to file the relevant documents in support of his educational qualification mentioned. However, the Returning Officer illegally accepted the nomination paper. The petitioner claims that he subsequently obtained necessary information from the University of Mysore about the aforesaid qualification claimed by the respondent and came to know that the respondent was never a student of MBA from Mysore University in the year 2004-05.

6. The respondent was declared elected after the respondent got 14521 votes whereas the petitioner got only 13363 votes when the result was declared on 06.03.2012.

7. The pe