LAMBOKLANG MYLLIEM Vs. BARNABAS NONGBAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition is filed by the petitioner/respondent praying for striking out Para -17, 18, 19, 20, 23(a), 23 (b), 23(c), 23(d), 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Election Petition bearing No. 2 of 2013 and further prayed for rejection of the Election Petition. In other words, it can be said that the petitioner/respondent challenged the maintainability of the Election Petition No. 2 of 2013.

(2.) MR . D Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing for on behalf of petitioner argued that the Election Petition does not disclosed how and in what manner opposite party has materially affected. Since the averments of the Election Petition No. 2 of 2013 are silent about the materially affected, therefore, it cannot survive. The learned counsel further argued that, the averments made in the Election Petition is a mere statement without any supporting materials, hence, from that point of view also the Election Petition No. 2 of 2013 has no legs to stand and needs to be rejected.

(3.) IN course of the arguments, the learned counsel relied on (2012) 11 SCC 390 reported in the case of Shambu Prasad Sharma vrs Charandas Mahant & Ors; (2012) 3 SCC 314 reported in the case of Mangani Lal Mandal vrs Bishnu Deo Bhandari; (2009) 10 SCC 541 reported in the case of Ram Sukh vrs Dinesh Aggarwal; AIR (1954) Vol. 41 reported in the case of Vashist Narain Sharma vrs Dev Chandra & Ors.; (2003) 4 SCC 399 reported in the case of People 's Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. Vrs Union of India & Anr.; (2002) 5 SCC 294 reported in the case of Union of India vrs Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr.; (2011) 2 SCC 532 reported in the case of Kalyan Kumar Gogoi vrs Ashutosh Agnihotri & Anr. and Election Petition No. 10 of 2004 passed by Bombay High Court reported in the case of Shri. Arun Dattatray Sawant vrs Shri. Kisan Shankar Kathore dated 16th August 2007.