JUDGMENT & ORDER

[1] Heard Shri M. Devananda, learned Advocate assisted by Shri Ph. Sanajaoba, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Shri S. Biswajit Meitei, learned counsel appearing for the principal respondent.

[2] This is an application filed by the applicant/ respondent No.1 praying for dismissal of the election petition being EP No. 9 of 2017 on the ground that it has been filed in violation of the provisions of Section 100 of the Representation People Act, 1951.

[3] The applicant is the respondent No.1 in the election petition and by this application being MC(EL.PET) No.35 of 2017, the applicant has raised an issue as regards the maintainability of the election petition filed by the principal respondent to declare him as the returned candidate. According to the applicant, the principal respondent has not approached this Court in compliance with the provisions of Section 100 of the Representation of the People, Act 1951 to ventilate his grievances and  rather, he has approached this Court violating the provisions mentioned therein.

[4] A reply has been filed by the principal respondent wherein a preliminary objection has been raised as regards the maintainability of the application itself on the ground that the same has been filed for nothing but to abuse the process of law by wasting the valuable time of this Court. It has been submitted by him that the election petition has been filed under Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 on the ground of improper acceptance of nomination paper of the applicant by affecting materially the election of the principal respondent. Since the cause of action has been clearly pleaded by the principal respondent, there is no reason at all to reject the election petition. The election petition has been filed in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as enumerated under Section 100 of the Act.

[5.1] According to the principal respondent, the material facts and particulars have been stated in para 4.5 to 4.9 of the election petition which are relevant for the present and are given as under (without the portion of marking of annexure):

4.5 That, recently, it is found that one FIR Case being FIR No.77(3) 2013 City PS under section 38, 39, 40 UA (P) Act and 380/120- B IPC is pending against the respondent No.1 in City Police Station, Imphal and in connection with the FIR Case, the respondent No. 1 was arrested by the Police of City Police Station and produced before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Imphal West and remanded to police Custody. The respondent No.1 deliberately concealed the pendency of the FIR Case in the affidavit filed along with nomination paper before the Returning Officer of 4-Kshetrigao Assembly Constituency. The respondent No.1 filled up the affidavit in column No.(1) (a) of para No. 5 as 5Not Applicable6 and further the respondent No. 1 filled up the column No. (1) (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of para No. 5 as 5N.A6. The respondent No. 1 has failed to furnish the detail information about the FIR Case being FIR No. 77(3) 2013 City PS under section 38,39, 40 UA(P) Act and 384/120-B IPC but the RO of 4-Kshetrigao AC had accepted the nomination paper of the respondent No.1 improperly. The petitioner has filed an application to the Superintendent of Police, Imphal West District, Manipur for directing the OC/ City PS to issue a certified copy of the said FIR Case. However, the copy of the said FIR Case has not been received by the petitioner till date.

4.6 That, in the affidavit along with nomination paper filed by the respondent No. 1 before the RO of 4-Kshetrigao AC for the election of 11^th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election, 2017, the respondent No.1 had mentioned in the column No. (3), (4) (5) (Dependent) of para No. 4 as 5NA6. Whereas, the respondent No.1 has 3(three) children-2(two) daughters and 1(one) son born through his wife namely Nahakpam (O) Rekha Devi and as such he failed to furnish the detail information in