SANASAM BIRA SINGH Vs. NINGTHOUJAM MANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Serto T. Kom, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant/ respondent No.1 and Shri A. Mohendro, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1/ petitioner.

(2.) This is an application filed by applicant/ respondent No.1 praying for dismissal of the election petition on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and in particular, sub-Section (I) of section 81 of said Act because the said election petition was not presented by respondent No.1/Petitioner himself in order to substantiate the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel appearing for applicant/ respondent No.1 has relied upon three documents. The first document is the election petition and in particular, the report given by the Stamp Reporter of this Court on the back/ overleaf of page 1 which reads as under:

(3.) An objection was filed by respondent No.1/ petitioner denying the averments made in the application and in addition thereto, it has been stated that the applicant/ respondent No.1 was trying to mislead this Court by making wrong submissions. On the day of filing the election petition, the respondent No.1/ petitioner was present and he presented his election petition before this Court through the Stamp Reporter. This fact was recorded by the Stamp Reporter in her Note dated 25.04.2017 which is reproduced hereinabove and the emphasis was given to the expression "presented by the election petitioner, Ningthoujam Mangi". It has also been stated that the first page of the election petition, at the top and on the right side, bears the expression "presented by N. Mangi, petitioner" written by him with his own signature. The said expressions have proved that the election petition was presented by the respondent No.1/ petitioner himself and his presentation had been accepted by the Registry of this Court. The proceedings of the present petition have been unnecessarily delayed resulting in the violation of the objective sought for in the Act and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In order to achieve his objective of delaying and interrupting the proceedings, the applicant/ respondent No.1 has been continuously abusing the process of law by filing application after application. In the application being MC(El.Pet) No.4 of 2019 filed by him with the prayer for dismissal of the election petition, the applicant/ respondent No.1 did not intentionally plead the ground raised in this application. Since the tenure of the elected members of the Manipur Legislative Assembly is five years, the applicant/ respondent No.1 is trying to defeat the intent of the election laws by playing delay tactics and the filing of the application after application is nothing but to delay the trial so that he can continue enjoying the facilities and the benefits of a legislature.