Election petitions must disclose complete material facts to establish a cause of action, allowing for a full trial on allegations of misrepresentation and asset concealment.

ORDER :

A. Guneshwar Sharma, J.

[1] The instant application, under Section 83 (1) (a) Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Order 6, Rule 2 and/or Order 6, Rule 4 and/or Order 6 Rule 16 and/or Order 7, Rule 11 and/or Order 15, Rule 1 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 is filed by the applicant/respondent No.1 (returned candidate) in the Election Petition No.13 of 2022, seeking for dismissal of the Election Petition as the Election Petitioner does not disclose a cause of action and there are no material facts/complete materials facts in the Election Petition upon which the election petitioner relies for his claim and reliefs.

[2] The applicant is the returned candidate from Kumbi Assembly Constituency having elected on BJP ticket in 12^th Manipur Assembly election held in the year 2022 and he is respondent No.1 in the election petition filed by the respondent herein who is the second placed candidate contesting on Janata Dal (U) ticket. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are other candidates from the constituency. For easy reference, the applicant herein will be referred to as ‘returned candidate’ and respondent No.1 herein as ‘election petitioner’ or ‘petitioner’.

[3] It is stated that the Election Petition had been filed in the context of the gross misrepresentation and concealment of facts, documents, assets, liabilities and holdings by the Applicant in filing his Form 26 Affidavit at the time of nomination for the 12^th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election held in the month of February & March, 2022. The election of the returned candidate is challenged mainly on the grounds referred in Para 5-A, 5-B, 5-C, 5-D, 5-E and 5-F of the election petition for furnishing wrong information relating to his educational qualification and assets.

[4] It is alleged in the election petition that the returned candidate has given wrong information about his highest education qualification in Para 10 of the Affidavit FORM-26 submitted at the time of nomination as having passed ‘Higher Secondary Examination (Class 12) from PLC Academy, Yairipok, Uttar Purva Siksha Board, Assam in 2019’. It is the case of the petitioner that the returned candidate did not pursue his schooling further after Class-VIII onwards and did not pass Class X so as to pursue Class XI and XII. The Certificate and Marksheet produced by the returned candidate are fake and do not indicate the stream of subject such as Science, Arts or Commerce. It is also urged that the ‘Uttar Purva Siksha Board’ is not a Board recognised by Ministry of Human Resources Development as per list published by the Govt of India [Annexure A-4 of EP]. In the list, only three Boards are recognised from Assam, namely, (i) Assam Higher Secondary Education Council, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati-21; (ii) Assam Board of Secondary Education, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati-21; and (iii) Assam State Open School, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati-21. It is pointed out that ‘Uttar Purva Siksha Board, Birubari, Guwahati-16, Assam’ from which the returned candidate is alleged to have passed Class 12, is not included in the list of recognised Boards from Assam and as such the returned candidate cannot be treated having passed Class 12 from a recognised Board.

[5] It is also stated that the returned candidate has not disclosed complete information about his assets, both movable and immovable, and also concealed vital information about his and spouse’s property in FORM-26 as alleged in Para 5-B, 5-C, 5-D, 5-E and 5