GAVIN MIGUEL MYLLIEM Vs. TITOSSTAR WELL CHYNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application has been filed by the respondent No. 1 under Sec. 86 of the Representation of People Act read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the Gauhati High Court Rules (as adopted by the High Court of Meghalaya).

(2.) The grounds taken in the instant application are that the Election Petition is ex-facie barred by Sec. 86 of the Representation of People Act, being filed in violation of Sec. 81, 82 & 83 of the said Act, the High Court of Meghalaya Rules, and also barred by law within the meaning of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

(3.) It has been submitted by Mr. S. Sahay, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent, that the election petition is liable to be dismissed as it failed to meet the requirement of filing of an election petition as stipulated by law. Reference has been made to Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India that prescribes that (i) election can only be challenged by way of election petition; (ii) and such election petition must be presented to the authorized authority (iii) and such presentation must be done in the manner prescribed under the law. In this regard it has been submitted that the law as framed for presentation, is contained in Sec. 81 of the RP Act, the contravention of which, entails outright dismissal as provided in Sec. 86 of the said Act.