IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Khwairakpam Loken Singh - Appellant
Versus
Rajkumar Imo Singh & Ors. - Respondents
MC(EP) No. 19 of 2020, Ref:- El. Petn. No. 5 of 2017
Decided On : 20-09-2021
JUDGMENT
[1] This application has been filed by the Applicant who is the Election Petitioner of the Election Petition No. 5 of 2017 to call for the documents viz., Serial Nos. 15 to 20 of Schedule II (annexed with M.C. (EP) No. 16 of 2018), from the respective authorities and on receipt of the same, allow the Petitioner to inspect the documents and take certified copies thereof.
[2] After hearing both parties, this Court had already disposed of on 15/01/2021 and thereafter, being aggrieved by the Order dated 15/01/2021 of this Court, the Respondent No. 1 preferred a Civil Appeal No. 804 of 2021 arising out of SLP (C) No. 2743 of 2021 and the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to remand back the present matter for consideration afresh with following observation on 03/03/2021:
“If the grievance of the election petitioner is limited to procedural irregularities, production of ballot papers may not be necessary. Hence, the High Court ought to have clarified, albeit briefly, as to how the stated documents are relevant and in what context.
Be that as it may, taking overall view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to relegate the parties before the High Court for reconsideration of the request made by the respondents regarding production of documents at Serial Nos. 15 to 20 referred to in paragraph 14 of the impugned Judgment and Order. That question be answered appropriately after analyzing relevant pleadings including the evidence already brought before the Court, in the form of affidavit of evidence.
All contentions available to both sides are left open, to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.
The application for production of documents moved by the respondents before the High Court is restored to the file of the High Court to its original number for being considered afresh expeditiously. Order accordingly.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms”.
[3] This application is taken up for re-hearing as per the Order of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
[4] Heard Mr. Gunedhor the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior counsel for the Respondent No. 1.
[3] Mr. Gunedhor the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by an order dated 05/03/2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to dispose of SLP being No. 10804/2019 preferred by the Applicant/Election Petitioner. In the said order dated 05/03/2020, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to direct as “the petitioner to approach the High Court in respect of document(s) at serial Nos. 15 to 20 of Schedule II, which application be decided on its own merits afresh by the High Court document-wise, about the relevancy and necessity to produce the same 2 subject to just exceptions.” Accordingly, the Applicant/Election Petitioner filed the present Misc. Case being MC (El. Petn.) No. 19 of 2020 (Ref: Election Petition No. 5 of 2017) praying to call for the documents at Serial Nos. 15 to 20 of Schedule II from the respective authorities and on receipt of the documents allows the Applicant/Election Petitioner to inspect the documents and take certified copies. The documents at Serial Nos. 15 to 20 of Schedule II are as follows:
| Sl. No | Particulars of Documents | From whom to be called from |
| 15. | The packets of unused postal Ballot papers with counterfoils attached thereto. | District Election Officer/ Returning Officer of No. 11- Sagolband Legislative Assembly Constituency, Manipur, Imphal West, Pin-795001. |
| 16. | The packets of used Postal Ballot papers whether valid, tendered or rejected | -do- |
| 17. | The packets of the counterfoils of used Postal Ballot papers | -do- |
| 18. | The packets of the marked copy of the electoral roll. | -do- |
| 19. | The packets containing registers of voters in Form 17. | -do- |
| 20. | The packets containing Registers of voters in Form 17 A under Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 in respect to |
Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonakar (2009) 9 SCC 310
Arikala Narasa Reddy Vs. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari and another
Basanagauda vs. Dr. S.B. Amarkhed (1992) 2 SCC 612
Dharlipakar vs. Rajiv Gandhi AIR 1987 SC 1577
Harmohinder Singh Pradhan vs. Ranjeet Singh Talwandi and others 2005 (5) SCC 46
Ishwar Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Anr.
Jeet Mohinder Singh vs. Harminder (1999) 9 SCC 386
Jitu Patnaik vs. Sanaqton Mohakud (2012) 4 SCC 194
Kalyan Singh Chouhan vs. C.P. Joshi
Messrs. Trojan & Co. vs. RM.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar
Om Prakash Gupta vs. Ranbir B. Goyal
Ram Sevak Yadav vs. Hussain Kamal Kidwai & Ors 1964 6 SCR 238 : AIR 1964 SC 1249
Ram Sukh vs. Dinesh Aggarwal (2009) 10 SCC 541
State of Maharashtra vs. M/s Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.
AI
An election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts to demonstrate grounds under the Representation of People Act; failure to do so results in dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of....
Inspection of election-related documents must be justified by adequate and precise allegations, ensuring integrity and purity of the electoral process.
The rejection of postal ballots was valid under election rules, and discrepancies did not materially affect the election outcome.
An election petition must contain material facts; vague allegations without substantiation lead to dismissal.
An election petition may be rejected if it fails to comply with mandatory pleading requirements regarding concise statements of material facts and particulars of corrupt practices as per the Represen....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.