Manipur High Court
Houlim Shokhopao Mate @ Benjamin Aged ... vs Shri Lorho S.Pfoze on 8 December, 2021
Author: M.V. Muralidaran
Bench: M.V. Muralidaran
JOHN
TELEN KOM
Digitally signed by
JOHN TELEN KOM IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Date: 2021.12.10 AT IMPHAL
16:01:58 +05'30' MC(EP) No.19 of 2021
Ref:Election Petion No.1 of 2019
Houlim Shokhopao Mate @ Benjamin aged about 36 years S/O (L) H.
Jamkhokhai Mate, resident of Tengnoupal Village, PO & PS-
Tengnoupal, District-Tengnoupal, Manipur-795131.
....... Applicant
- Versus -
1. Shri Lorho S.Pfoze, aged about 59 years S/O Late A. Sibo Pfoze,
resident of Kayinu Village, P.O. & P.S.- Mao, District, Senapati,
Manipur-795150.
2. Angam Karung Kom, aged about 65 years, S/O Late Ashong Kom,
resident of K.R. Lane, PO & PS- Porompat, District-Imphal East,
Manipur-795005;
3. Shri Hangkhngpau Taithul, aged about 55 years, S/O Late T.
Doupu, resident of Singngat Hausa Veng, PO & PS-Singngat,
Churachandpur District, Manipur-795139;
4. Mr. Ashang Kasar @ Wungnaishang Kasar @ Wungnao Shang
Kasar, aged about 43 years, S/O Ngashathing Kasar, resident of
MC(EP) No.19 of 2021. Page 1
Chadong Village, PO & PS - Litan, Kamjong District, Manipur-
795145;
5. Leikhan Kaipu, aged about 54 years, S/O Late Leikhan Kokan,
resident of Heikakpokpi Village, PO Pallel P.S.- Machi, Machi Sub-
Division, Tengnoupal District, Manipur-795135
6. Thangminlien Kipgen, aged about 64 years, S/O Late Thangpu
Kipgen, resident of Haipi Village, PO- Kalapahar, Kangpokpi
District, Manipur-795122;
7. Shri K. James, aged about 56 years, S/O Late K. Ngatangmi,
resident of Tangkhul Hungdung Khullen, PO Lamlong, P.S. Litan,
Kamjong District, Manipur-795010
Presently residing at JIM Blessing Home, Sangaiprou
Mamang Leikai, Airport, Airport Road, PO & PS-Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur-795008.
.... Respondents
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN For the Applicant : Mr.Ajoy Pebam, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr.B.R. Sharma, Adv.
Date of hearing & reserved : 23.11.2021
Date of Judgment & Order : 08.12.2021
MC(EP) No.19 of 2021. Page 2
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] This application has been filed by the applicant praying to complete
the trial of the election petition by day-to-day hearing in a time bound manner by treating the election petition as a special case in the interest of justice, fair play and equity and also to avoid multiplicity of litigation. [2] The applicant is the election petitioner in the election petition. [3] Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the contesting respondent.
[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the proceedings of the main election petition has been delayed unnecessarily by the first respondent with the objective of slowing down the disposal of the election petition as directed in the statutory provision rendered in Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and also various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would submit that to achieve his objective to delay and interrupt the adjudication procedure of the election petition within the stipulated time, the first MC(EP) No.19 of 2021. Page 3 respondent has been continuously abusing the process of law by constantly getting adjournment in the matter so as to defeat the very purpose of the law. [5] Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that this Court ought to have exercised judicial discernment while considering the fact that the first respondent was intentionally getting adjournment in the matter in order to avert the expeditious disposal of the election petition and that the main election petition is very much required to be considered and disposed of expeditiously. [6] To support his case, the learned counsel for the applicant has produced the following judgments passed by the Honb'le Supreme Court:-
(I) In Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh -vs- Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithibiraj Singh [Civil Appeal No.8063 of 2015] on October 1, 2015 that "an election petition has to be decided in quite promptitude as there is an obligation cast upon the Court to dispose of the same within a period of six months. Engrafting a provision in the nature of Section 86(7) of the Act, the legislative intendment is clear that the Court has to endeavor to dispose of an election petition as expeditiously as possible and not to allow the parties to take resort to unnecesarry adjournments for file vexatious applications."
MC(EP) No.19 of 2021. Page 4 (II). In 1993 Legal Eagle (SC) 599=1993 AIR(SC) 2592=1993 (Supp.4)SCC 46, Naseem Bang-Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh that means that the respondent No.1 admitted the facts.
"11. The aforesaid reply would show that on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4, it was not disputed that 40% posts which have to be filled up by promotion had not been filled up and the denial of promotion to the appellant was justified on the sole ground that she was not qualified to be promoted to L.T. grade. This shows that in the pleadings before the High Court, there was no contest on the question that the post of L.T. grade which sanctioned on August, 29, 1977 was required to be filled up by promotion for the reason that 40% posts had not been so filled. Even though there was no contest on this question the High Court has gone into it and has held that the appellant has failed to establish her case that at the time of the appointment of respondent No.6 by direct recruitment 40% of the total number of posts in the college were not filled up by promotion as prescribed by Regulation 5(2)(a) of the Regulations. Since no dispute was raised on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in their reply to the averments made by the appellant in the writ petition that 40% of the total number of posts had not been filled by promotion inasmuch as the said averments had not been controverted the High Court should have proceeded on the basis that the said averments had been admitted by respondents."
MC(EP) No.19 of 2021. Page 5 [7] Per contra, Mr. B.R.Sharma, learned counsel for the contesting first respondent submitted that the first respondent is not in the habit of delaying the trial of the election petition and as against the dismissal of the application to reject the election petition, he has filed SLP before the Honorable Supreme Court and the same was assigned Diary Number. He would submit that till the disposal of the said SLP, the main election petition has to be deferred. [8] This Court considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. [9] At the outset, it is to be pointed out that prayer of the first respondent to defer the further proceedings of the main election petition was also taken into consideration by this Court in M.C. (EP) No.21 of 2021 and the said prayer has been declined by this Court in a separate order.
[10] Coming to the prayer made in the instant application by the election petitioner for early disposal of the election petition, it is seen that the applicant has filed the election petition on 8.7.2019 praying to declare the election of the first respondent to be the returned candidate of 2-Outer Manipur (ST) Parliamentary Constituency to the 17th Lok Sabha, 2019 as null and void under Section 100(1)(d)(i) & (v) as well as under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the MC(EP) No.19 of 2021. Page 6 People Act, 1951. The election petition was admitted and this Court issued notice to the respondents on 31.7.2019. It appears that the first respondent refused to receive the notice in the election petition and accordingly, an ex parte proceeding against him was initiated and thereafter, he moved an application to set aside the ex parte order and had entered appearance on 5.2.2020. After entering appearance, instead of filing written statement, the first respondent filed M.C. (EP) No.25 of 2020 under order VII, Rule 11 CPC to dismiss the election petition after 15 months and by the order dated 25.3.2021, M.C. (EP) No.25 of 2020 was dismissed by this Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent preferred SLP and it is informed that the same is yet to be numbered till date and it is in defect list.
[11] It is apposite to mention that Order VIII, Rule 1 CPC clearly states that written statement ought to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of summon. In the instant case, the first respondent entered appearance on 5.2.2020 and which means that he received the summon before 5.2.2020 which is also after the ex parte order was passed on 24.1.2020. It appears that the first respondent filed his written statement only on 15.7.2021.
[12] As per the provision of Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible MC(EP) No.19 of 2021. Page 7 and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date on which the election is presented to the high Court for trial. Though the election petition was filed on 8.7.2019, the same was not disposed of till date for one reason or the other and also filing of the application after application by the first respondent.
[13] The Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again, held that an election petition has to be decided in quite promptitude as there is an obligation cast upon the Court to dispose of the same within a period of six months. Engrafting a provision in the nature of Section 86(7) of the Act, the legislative intendment is clear that the Court has to endeavour to dispose of an election petition as expeditiously as possible and not to allow the parties to take resort to unnecessary adjournments or file vexatious applications.
[14] At this Juncture, it is to be pointed out that the tenure of the election members of the Member of Parliament is five years and the returned candidate is vigorously attempting to defeat the legislative intention of the election laws by adopting delay tactics. The repeated filing of unnecessary application is nothing but to divert from the main issues and further delay the main matter which resultantly violate the provisions of law so as to continue to enjoy the perks, MC(EP) No.19 of 2021. Page 8 facilities and immunities reserved for legislators. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the applicant, due to prolonged delay in considering the applicant's grievance, he has been deprived of his legitimate right as per the provisions provided in the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
[15] It appears that earlier the first respondent had filed M.C. (EP) No.25 of 2020 before this Court under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC praying to dismiss the election petition as it has failed to disclose the cause of action in terms of the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. By a detailed order dated 25.3.2021, this Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court assigned Diary No. 10469 of 2021. [16] According to the applicant, the said SLP was under defect list and only to delay the trial in the election petition, the first respondent has filed the SLP. Mere filing of SLP before the Honorable Court cannot affect the proceeding of the main election petition and moreover, as admitted by the applicant, the SLP is not yet registered and in fact, the said SLP was under defect list. The fact also remains that there is no interim order restraining this Court from proceeding with the main election petition.
MC(EP) No.19 of 2021. Page 9 [17] As stated supra and it is reiterated that it has become a continuous practice of the first respondent to file application after application in order to delay the trial of the matter. In fact, the first respondent has filed M.C. (EP) No.39 of 2021 to reject the replication filed by the applicant, which is contrary to the submissions made by him in M.C. (EP) No.27 of 2021.
[18] It is informed that the SLP Diary No.10469 of 2021 is likely to be listed on 14.12.2021. Since the SLP has not yet been numbered and there is no interim order restraining this Court from proceeding with the election petition further and also in view of the order passed in M.C.(EP) No.21 of 2021, this Court is of the view that deferring the further proceedings of the election petition is not appropriate and the trial of the election petition has to be commenced in the interest of justice, for which the parties are directed to co-operate with the trial. [19] Accordingly, M.C. (EP) No.19 of 2021 is allowed.
[20] No costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
John kom
MC(EP) No.19 of 2021. Page 10