Manipur High Court
(Through Video Conference) vs Dr. Khwairakpam Loken Singh on 10 December, 2021
Digitally
JOHN signed by
JOHN TELEN
Page 1 of 10
TELEN KOM
Date:
2021.12.13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
KOM 16:30:13
+05'30'
AT IMPHAL
MC(El.Petn.) No.27 of 2019
Ref: El. Petn. No.5 of 2017
(Through Video Conference)
Shri Rajkumar Imo Singh, S/o (L) R.K. Jaichandra
Singh, Resident of Sagolband Bijoy Govinda, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, District - Imphal (West), Manipur - 795001.
.... Applicant/s
- Versus -
1. Dr. Khwairakpam Loken Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o Kh.
Kulla Singh, Resident of Sega Road, Tekhellambam Leikai, P.S.
& P.O. Imphal, District - Imphal (West), Manipur-795001;
2. Smt. G. Satyabati Devi, W/O Ph. Jilasana Sharma, a resident of
Sagolband Wahengbam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal
West District, Manipur-795001;
3. Shri Laishram Gyaneshwar, S/O (L) Laishram Indramani, a
resident of Sagolband Ingudam Leirak, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Imphal - 795001.
.... Respondent/s
MC(El. Petn.) No.27 of 2019
Ref: El. Petn. No.5 of 2017
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Applicant : Mr. H.S. Paonam, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. M. Gunedhor, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 11.11.2021
Judgment & Order : 10.12.2021
JUDGMENT &ORDER
(CAV)
This application has been filed by the applicant seeking to reject
the list of documents filed by the election petitioner as the same has been
denied by this Court vide order dated 14.1.2019 passed in M.C. (EP) No.16
of 2018 and the order dated 15.4.2019 passed in M.C. (EP) No.15 of 2018
and to consequently dismiss the election petition or keep the same at
abeyance as trial could not be proceeded.
[2] The applicant is the first respondent in the election petition, who
was elected Member of the 11th Manipur Legislative Assembly from 11-
Sagolband Assembly Constituency.
MC(El. Petn.) No.27 of 2019
Ref: El. Petn. No.5 of 2017
[3] Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the
applicant/1st Respondent in the Election Petition and Mr. M. Gunedhor,
learned counsel for the first respondent/election petitioner.
[4] Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the applicant
submitted that the applicant has defeated the first respondent/election
petitioner by margin of 19 votes and present application has been filed for
rejecting the list of documents filed by the election petitioner as the same has
been denied by this Court vide order dated 14.1.2019 passed in MC (EP)
No.16 of 2018 and the order dated 15.4.2019 passed in MC (EP) No.15 of
2018.
[5] The learned senior counsel for the applicant further submitted
that MC (EP) No.16 of 2018 has been filed by the election petitioner for
calling the documents mentioned in the schedule annexed with the
application from the respective authorities and on receipt of the same, allow
the election petitioner to inspect the documents. The aforesaid application
has been contested and this Court, by an order dated 14.1.2019, dismissed
the application. Aggrieved by the same, the election petitioner filed SLP
No.10804 of 2019 and the same is pending for final consideration.
MC(El. Petn.) No.27 of 2019
Ref: El. Petn. No.5 of 2017
[6] The learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the
election petitioner filed MC (EP) No.15 of 2018 praying for granting leave to
him to produce the documents. However, by the order dated 15.4.2019, the
said application was dismissed by this Court. He would Submit that despite
rejection of praying for calling of documents Mentioned in MC (EP) No.16 of
2018 and on documents appended in MC (EP) No.15 of 2018, the election
petitioner has filed list of documents reiterating the list of documents
mentioned in both miscellaneous applications, which have already been
rejected by this Court and hence, the list of documents contained in MC (EP)
Nos.15 and 16 of 2018 are impermissible and would not be sustainable in the
eyes of law and therefore, this Court may reject the documents filed by the
election petitioner in view of the order dated 14.1.2019 in MC (EP) No.16 of
2018 and order dated 15.4.2019 passed in MC (EP) No.15 of 2018.
[7] Per contra, Mr. M. Gunedhor, learned counsel for the first
respondent/election petitioner submitted that the election petitioner filed two
miscellaneous cases being MC (EP) Nos.15 and 16 of 2018 and this Court
vide order dated 14.1.2019 dismissed MC (EP) No.16 of 2018 and while
dismissing the said miscellaneous case, MC (EP) No.15 of 2018 was not
disposed of on the same date. He would submit that as against order dated
MC(El. Petn.) No.27 of 2019
Ref: El. Petn. No.5 of 2017
14.1.2019, the election petitioner preferred SLP and the same is pending
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
[8] Learned counsel for the election petitioner further submitted that
the applicant herein has filed objection to MC (EP) No-16 of 2018, however,
no such objection has ever been raised by him in MC (EP) No.15 of 2018
and the election petitioner came to know the order passed in MC (EP) No.15
of 2018 only on 16.12.2019.
[9] Learned counsel for the election petitioner next submitted that
the applicant has no right to file the instant application for rejection of the list
of documents filed by the election petitioner in MC (EP) Nos.16 and 15 of
2018 on the ground that the same were denied by this Court vide orders
dated 14.1.2019 and 15.4.2019 respectively. He would submit that the
present application has been filed by the applicant with an ill-motive and
therefore, the same cannot be entertained.
[10] This Court considered the submissions raised by learned
counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
[11] The first respondent/election petitioner filed Election Petition
No.5 of 2017 challenging the election of the applicant herein from 11-
MC(El. Petn.) No.27 of 2019
Ref: El. Petn. No.5 of 2017
Sagolband Assembly Constituency in the 11th Manipur Legislative Assembly,
Pending election petition, the election petitioner filed MC (EP) Nos.15 and 16
of 2018 calling the documents annexed with the applications from the
respective authorities indicated in the schedule and upon receipt of the
same, allow the election petitioner to inspect the said documents and take
certified copy thereof.
[12] It is seen that the two set of documents called by the election
petitioner is from (1) The Election Commission of India, New Delhi and (2)
The District Election Officer/Returning Officer of No.11-Sagolband Legislative
Assembly Constituency, Manipur.
[13] As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the election
petitioner, this Court heard MC (EP) No.16 of 2018 on 29.11.2018 and while
hearing the said miscellaneous case, MC (EP) No.i5 of 2018 has not been
taken up for hearing.
[14] It is seen that MC (EP) No.16 of 2018 has been strongly
contested by the applicant herein and by the order dated, 14.1.2019, this
Court dismissed the said miscellaneous case on the ground that the
application is devoid of merit. On a perusal of the order dated 14.1.2019, it is
MC(El. Petn.) No.27 of 2019
Ref: El. Petn. No.5 of 2017
also seen that this Court dealt with the two set of documents i.e. Schedule I
and II.
[15] While dismissing MC (EP) No.16 of 2018, this Court observed
that so far as the documents mentioned in Schedule-I are concerned, they
are either guidelines or instructions issued by the Election Commission of
India, from time to time, in relation to the election and are in its possession
and moreover, since the existence of these documents is not denied by the
applicant, the same are not required to be called for. In other words, the
documents mentioned in Schedule-I are official documents. As far as the
documents listed in Schedule-II are concerned, this Court observed that
some of the documents are instructions which will fall in the same line as that
of the documents in Schedule-I and as regards the remaining documents, the
concise statement of material facts which was found in para 31 of the
election petition was required to be gone into. Describing the documents in
Schedule-II, this Court finally observed that the documents as mentioned in
Schedule-II except the application dated 5.4.2017 are not required to be
called for.
MC(El. Petn.) No.27 of 2019
Ref: El. Petn. No.5 of 2017
[16] It appears that as against the order dated 14.1.2019, the
election petitioner preferred SLP No.10804 of 2019 and the same is
admittedly pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, on
15.4.2019, MC (EP) No.15 of 2018 was taken up for hearing and on the
same day, this Court dismissed the said Miscellaneous observing as under:
"This Court by an order dated 14.01.2019 dismissed the MC
(El.Petn.) No.16 of 2018 (Ref:El.Petn.No.5 of 2017) having the
same prayer as it is sought for in the present MC (El.Petn.)
No.15 of 2018.
Hence, this MC (El.Petn.) No.15 of 2018 is also dismissed as it
has the same prayer and relief as sought for in MC (El.Petn.)
No.16 of 2018.
MC stands dismissed as above."
[17] Taking advantage of the dismissal of MC (EP) Nos.16 and 15 of
2018, the applicant seeks rejection of the documents filed along with the
election petition as the same has been denied by this Court vide orders
dated 14.1.2019 and 15.4.2019 respectively. The said plea of the applicant
cannot be accepted for the reason that while dismissing MC (EP) No.16 of
2018, this Court observed that the documents in Schedule-I are official
documents and if need arises during the course of the trial, a responsible
MC(El. Petn.) No.27 of 2019
Ref: El. Petn. No.5 of 2017
officer working in the Election Commission of India can be examined as
witness to verify the factum of the Said documents being issued by the
Election Commission of India, This Court has not curtailed and/or prevented
the election petitioner, from proceeding with the trial of the election petition
and also not prevented the election petitioner from marking documents. In
the order dated 14.1.2019, this Court clearly stated that since the existence
of the documents was not denied by the applicant herein, the same are not
required to be called for. When such being the observation of this Court, it
cannot be said that since the prayer for calling for the documents was
rejected, the election petition has to be dismissed or be kept in abeyance as
trial cannot be proceeded. In fact, as against the order dated 14.1.2019
passed in MC (EP) No.16 of 2018, the election petitioner has preferred SLP
No.10804 of 2019 and admittedly, the same is still pending.
[18] This Court finds that there is no merit in the instant application
filed by the applicant. That apart, based on the pleadings, this Court already
framed six issues and the trial of the election petition has to be commenced
on the basis of the materials placed on record. Furthermore, SLP No.10804
of 2019 is still bending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and with regard to
Pendency of the aforesaid SLP, the applicant has not filed any contrary
MC(El. Petn.) No.27 of 2019
Ref: El. Petn. No.5 of 2017
document. In such view of the matter, the prayer of the applicant cannot be
entertained and the present application is liable to be dismissed.
[19] Accordingly, this Misc.Case in MC (EP) No.27 of 2019 is
dismissed. No costs.
[20] Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the
parties through their whatsapp/e-mail.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
-Larson
MC(El. Petn.) No.27 of 2019
Ref: El. Petn. No.5 of 2017
