Houlim Shokhopao Mate @ Benjamin ... vs Shri Lorho S.Pfoze
2021 Latest Caselaw 327 Mani

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