Back
2022 Supreme(Manipur) 35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Lallukhum Fimate - Appellant
Versus
Chaltonlien Amo & Ors. - Respondents
Election Petition No. 7 of 2017
Decided On : 30-03-2022
Mr. Serto T. Kom, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. N. Ibotombi, Sr. Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that election petitions must comply with the mandatory requirements of disclosing material facts and full particulars of corrupt practices, as stipulated in the Act of 1951. Additionally, the court has the discretion to refuse to examine witnesses if their evidence is not material for the decision of the petition.
Headnote:
Corrupt Practice - Election Petition - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 81, 100, 101
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an election petition seeking to declare the election of the first respondent as void on the grounds of corrupt practices under Section 100(1)(b) and undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Act of 1951. The first respondent denied the allegations, and during the trial, the first respondent resigned from the membership of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, leading to a question of whether the court had the power to proceed with the election petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and concluded that the allegations of corrupt practice and undue influence were not supported by material facts. The court also considered the provisions of the Act of 1951 and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to determine whether to proceed with the election petition. Ultimately, the court found that the relief claimed by the petitioner had become infructuous due to the resignation of the first respondent and the subsequent election, leading to the dismissal of the election petition.
Issues: The issues involved the question of whether the court had the power to proceed with the election petition after the resignation of the first respondent and the subsequent election, as well as the allegations of corrupt practice and undue influence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Act of 1951, particularly Sections 81, 100, 101, 83, 86, and 87, to determine the requirements for filing an election petition and the procedure for trial. The court also considered the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of disclosing material facts and full particulars of corrupt practices in election petitions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the election petition as having been rendered infructuous, citing the resignation of the first respondent and the subsequent election. The court found that the relief claimed by the petitioner had become redundant, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
JUDGMENT
1. This election petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 81 read with Sections 100 and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [for short, 'the Act of 1951'] for declaring the election of the first respondent from 55-Tipoaimukh (ST) Assembly Constituency, Churachandpur, Manipur as void and to declare the petitioner as elected on the grounds that (i) the first respondent is guilty of a corrupt practice under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act of 1951 by way of booth capturing under Section 135(A)(1), Explanation (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Act of 1951; (ii) by means of undue influence the first respondent has interfered with the free exercise of electoral right of genuine voters, thereby attracting Section 123(2) of the Act of 1951 and (iii) the first respondent had sworn a false affidavit for which his nomination should have been rejected.
2. The allegation against the first respondent is that on 4.3.2017, two polling agents namely Lalngilnei and Remruotsang were threatened by the first respondent and he pointed out finger on the forehead of Lalngilnei with anger and loud and harsh voice, as he continued to raise objection against persons who were trying to vote by impersonation during polls. According to the petitioner, polling booth of 25/55- Tipaimukh police station was under seized by the first respondent in between 1.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. by remaining inside the polling booth.
3. The first respondent resisted the election petition by filing his written statement stating that the allegation for seizure of the booth is vague, incorrect and concocted and also the first respondent denied each of the instances of booth capturing alleged by the petitioner. According to the first respondent, the allegations levelled by the petitioner lack in material facts and particulars. On the basis of such pleadings, no case of corrupt practice can be said to have been made out. In fact, no complaint by the election agents of the petitioner or by the petitioner or by the said polling agents, who were alleged to have been threatened by the first respondent and two candidates, namely Thangthatling Sinate and Ngurivung to the competent authority on the day of the alleged occurrence. Further, no complaint was also lodged either by the Presiding Officer or the Polling Officers stationed at the polling station to the Returning Officer or to the Election Commission of India that the first respondent remained in the polling booth in question and threatened two polling agents.
4. Based on the pleadings, necessary issues have been formulated by this Court and thereafter, on the side of the petitioner, the petitioner and 10 other witnesses were examined and on the side of the first respondent, 15 witnesses were examined.
5. When the cross-examination of DW15 is pending, on 24.1.2022, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that during pendency of the election petition, the returned candidate/first respondent resigned from the membership from the Manipur Legislative Assembly and accordingly, the Secretary, Manipur Legislative Assembly issued a Bulletin Part-II dated 10.1.2022, thereby declaring that the 55- Tipaikmkh (ST) Assembly Constituency is lying vacant. He also pointed out that when fresh notification being issued by the Election Commission of India for the Manipur Legislative Assembly whether this Court have power to proceed the case or not? In view of the above, learned senior counsel wants to argue on that points.
6. When this Court posed this point to learned counsel for the petitioner, he also agreed to argue on that point. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed to advance their arguments on the point whether this Court has power to proceed with the election petition after the fresh notification being issued by the Election Commission of India. Accordingly, the matter was listed on 02.02.2022 and this Court heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learn
