SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Manipur) 124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Houlim Shokhopao Mate @ Benjamin - Appellant
Versus
Lorho S. Pfoze & Ors. - Respondents
Election Petition No. 1 of 2019
Decided On : 23-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sundeep Srivastava, Mr. Ashem Mohendro Singh, Advocates., for the Petitioners; Mr. HS Paonam, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B. R. Sharma, Advocate., for the Respondents

Headnote:(A) Representation of People Act, 1951 - Sections 100(1)(d)(i) & (iv), 100(1)(b), 36 - Election petition to declare election null and void due to improper acceptance of nomination - Nomination of candidate accepted despite significant omissions in affidavit - Election declared void due to substantial defects affecting election's integrity. (Paras 1-146)

(B) Corrupt practices - Non-disclosure of material facts and improper acceptance of nomination constitutes corrupt practice; failure to disclose assets, and maintaining election accounts mandates compliance with RP Act. (Paras 72-112)

(C) Final decision - The election of the first respondent declared void and the petitioner declared duly elected due to majority of valid votes cast. (Paras 144-146)

Table of Content
1. filing of election petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. respondent's defenses. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. issues framing for trial. (Para 16 , 18 , 19)
4. allegations of affidavit defects. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. cross-examination and admissions. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)
6. legal framework on nominations. (Para 44 , 54 , 74)
7. undue influence and corrupt practices. (Para 119 , 120)
8. conclusion on election validity. (Para 145 , 146)

JUDGMENT

1. This Election Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 100 (1)(d)(i)&(iv) and under Section 100 (1)(b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the RP Act') to declare that the election of the first respondent from 2-Outer Manipur (ST) Parliamentary Constituency to the 17th Lok Sabha, 2019 as null and void and to declare that the petitioner is the duly elected Member in the 17th Lok Sabha, 2019 from 2-Outer Manipur (ST) Parliamentary Constituency under Section 101 of the RP Act.

2. The Returning Officer of 2-Outer Manipur (ST) Parliamentary Constituency notified the election schedule for a Member to the House of People (Lok Sabha) in No.2-Outer Manipur (ST) Parliamentary Constituency in the following manner:

(a) Last date for making nomination

:

25.03.2019

(b) Date of scrutiny of nomination

:

26.03.2019

(c) Last date for withdrawal of nomination

:

28.03.2019

(d) Date of poll

:

11.04.2019

3. Pursuant to the public notice, the petitioner and others have filed their nomination papers within the time specified and the Returning Officer thereafter published in the Official Gazette the list of the candidates contesting in the Lok Sabha Election, 2019 from No.2-Outer Manipur (ST) Parliamentary Constituency. The list of candidates notified is as under:

    1. Houlim Shokhopao Mate @ Benjamin [BJP]

    2. Lorho S. Pfoze [Naga People's Front]

    3. Angam Karung Kom [Nationalist Congress Party]

    4. Hangkhan pautaithul [Janata Dal - United]

    5. Ashang Kasar @ Wungnaoshang Kasar @ Wungnao Shang Kasar [North East India Development Party]

    6. Leikhan Kaipu [Independent Candidate]

    7. ThangminlienKipgen [National People's Party]

    8. K.James [Indian National Congress]

4. Succinctly put, the facts are as follows:-

The petitioner has filed his nomination papers along with required documents duly sworn by an affidavit before the Returning Officer. Similarly, respondents 1 to 7 have also filed their nomination papers. He first filed his affidavit in Form 26 dated 21.3.2019 along with his nomination paper as a candidate sponsored by the Naga People's Front (NPF) before the Returning Officer. On 26.3.2019, during scrutiny, the Returning Officer abruptly and improperly accepted the nomination paper of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, there was no proper scrutiny as envisaged under Section 36 (2) of the RP Act. The affidavit in Form 26 filed by the first respondent suffers from the following defects:

    1. The first respondent kept Column 5 of Para 4 of the affidavit as blank as nothing is filled up in the relevant column.

    2. The gross total value disclosed by the first respondent at Para 7-A(ix) showing Rs.52,23,704/- for self and Rs.2,35,648/- for spouse are not correct and misleading, thereby filing false affidavit.

    3. The first respondent failed to disclose vital material information in his affidavit pertaining to his non-agricultural lands and other interest in immovable properties at Para 7-B(ii) and (v) despite having owning immovable properties at Kayinu Village, Mao, Senapati District, Manipur, thereby rendering his nomination as invalid and void.

    4. The first respondent failed to disclose the relevant details for showing a sum of Rs.1,12,50,000/- at Para 7-B(vi) of his affidavit, thereby filed a false affidavit.

    5. The first respondent also furnished misleading and false particulars/information at Para No.(9B)(f) of his affidavit, thereby failed to disclose the details of contracts entered into by private companies in which candidate or spouse or dependent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top