Manipur High Court
Sanasam Premchandra Singh vs Ahanthem Shanjoy Singh on 30 August, 2024
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC (Election Petition) No.69 of 2023
Ref: (Election Petition No.13 of 2022)
Sanasam Premchandra Singh,
aged about 46 years, s/o late
Jabamjao @ Sanasam Jaramajao Singh,
resident of Kumbi Salanngkonjin Part-2
Near Public Community Hall, PO
Moirang, PS Kumbi, Bishnupur
District, Manipur ... Respondent No.1/Applicant
-Versus-
1. Ahanthem Shanjoy Singh, aged about
46 years, s/o Ahanthen Surchandra Singh,
a permanent resident of Wangoo Sabal,Wangoo
Ahallup, PO Moirang, PS Moirang, Bishnupur
District, Manipur 795133.
... Election Petitioner/ O.P.
2. Ningthoujam Mangi Singh, aged about 71 years,
s/o late Ningthoujam Ibomcha Singh, Kumbi Ward
No.9 PO Moirang, PS Kumbi, Bishnupur District,
Manipur 795133.
3. Dr.Khangembam Romesh Singh, aged about
45 years s/o Khangembam Amrita Singh, Kumbi
Khuga Wangma, PO Moirang, PS Kumbi, Bishnupur
District, Manipur 795133.
4. Naorem Sorojini Devi, aged about 43 years,
w/o Shougrakpam Chandrakumar Singh, Saiton
Maning Leikai, PO Moirang, PS Kumbi, Bishnupur
District, Manipur 795133.
...Respondents/O.Ps.
MC(EP) No. 69 of 2023 in EP No. 13 of 2022:Page 1
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Applicant :: Mr.B.R.Sharma, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mr.N.Mahendra, Advocate
Mr.Ajoy Pebam, Advocate
Mr.Riyananda, Advocate
Mr.Leo Rommel, Advocate
Date of hearing :: 31.01.2024/05.03.2024/20.03.2024
Date of order :: 30.08.2024
ORDER
(CAV)
[1] The instant application, under Section 83 (1) (a)
Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Order 6, Rule 2 and/or
Order 6, Rule 4 and/or Order 6 Rule 16 and/or Order 7, Rule 11 and/or
Order 15, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is filed by the
applicant/respondent No.1 (returned candidate) in the Election Petition
No.13 of 2022, seeking for dismissal of the Election Petition as the
Election Petitioner does not disclose a cause of action and there are no
material facts/complete materials facts in the Election Petition upon
which the election petitioner relies for his claim and reliefs.
[2] The applicant is the returned candidate from Kumbi
Assembly Constituency having elected on BJP ticket in 12 th Manipur
Assembly election held in the year 2022 and he is respondent No.1 in
the election petition filed by the respondent herein who is the second
placed candidate contesting on Janata Dal (U) ticket. Respondent Nos.
2, 3 and 4 are other candidates from the constituency. For easy
reference, the applicant herein will be referred to as 'returned
candidate' and respondent No.1 herein as 'election petitioner' or
'petitioner'.
[3] It is stated that the Election Petition had been filed in the
context of the gross misrepresentation and concealment of facts,
documents, assets, liabilities and holdings by the Applicant in filing his
Form 26 Affidavit at the time of nomination for the 12th Manipur
Legislative Assembly Election held in the month of February & March,
2022. The election of the returned candidate is challenged mainly on
the grounds referred in Para 5-A, 5-B, 5-C, 5-D, 5-E and 5-F of the
election petition for furnishing wrong information relating to his
educational qualification and assets.
[4] It is alleged in the election petition that the returned
candidate has given wrong information about his highest education
qualification in Para 10 of the Affidavit FORM-26 submitted at the time
of nomination as having passed 'Higher Secondary Examination (Class
12) from PLC Academy, Yairipok, Uttar Purva Siksha Board, Assam in
2019'. It is the case of the petitioner that the returned candidate did
not pursue his schooling further after Class-VIII onwards and did not
pass Class X so as to pursue Class XI and XII. The Certificate and
Marksheet produced by the returned candidate are fake and do not
indicate the stream of subject such as Science, Arts or Commerce. It is
also urged that the 'Uttar Purva Siksha Board' is not a Board recognised
by Ministry of Human Resources Development as per list published by
the Govt of India [Annexure A-4 of EP]. In the list, only three Boards
are recognised from Assam, namely, (i) Assam Higher Secondary
Education Council, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati-21; (ii) Assam Board of
Secondary Education, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati-21; and (iii) Assam
State Open School, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati-21. It is pointed out that
'Uttar Purva Siksha Board, Birubari, Guwahati-16, Assam' from which
the returned candidate is alleged to have passed Class 12, is not
included in the list of recognised Boards from Assam and as such the
returned candidate cannot be treated having passed Class 12 from a
recognised Board.
[5] It is also stated that the returned candidate has not
disclosed complete information about his assets, both movable and
immovable, and also concealed vital information about his and spouse's
property in FORM-26 as alleged in Para 5-B, 5-C, 5-D, 5-E and 5-F of
the election petition. It is prayed that the election of the returned
candidate on BJP ticket be declared void and to declare the petitioner
on JDU ticket be elected.
[6] The returned candidate has filed the present application
being MC(EP) No. 69 of 2023 for rejection of the election petition under
the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC mainly on the ground that the
election petition does not disclose a cause of action and the pleadings
do not contain the necessary foundation for raising appropriate issue
for trial.
[7] The petitioner has filed reply/objection to the application
of the returned candidate reiterating that concise statement of all the
material facts has been made in consonance with the relevant
provisions.
[8] In the reply filed by the respondent No.2, it is also stated
that the Election Petitioner has disclosed all material facts and
particulars in Para Nos. 5 and 6 of his Election Petition and these are
the sufficient materials to constitute the cause of action for setting aside
the Election of the Applicant in terms of Section 100 of the
Representation of People Act, 1951, being violative of Section 33 and
33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with Rule 4A of
the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, as well as
Instructions/Notifications issued by the Election Commission of India
under Article 324 of the Constitution of India.
[9] Further contention on behalf of respondent No.2 is that
the pleadings of the Election Petition should be read as whole and if
the contents of Para Nos.5 and 6 of the Election Petition are read as a
whole would show that the Election Petition is filed on the following
grounds:
(i) The applicant falsely declared his highest
education qualification in his Form 26 Affidavit.
(ii) The applicant did not pursue his schooling after
Class VIII onwards however, the applicant mentioned his
highest qualification as Class XII (Sr. Secondary
Examination).
(iii) The Certificate and other documents of the highest
educational qualification of the applicant i.e. Sr.
Secondary Examination, 2019 (Class XII) which was
purportedly issued by the Secretary, Uttar Purva Siksha
Board Guwahati, Assam under Roll No.093511207 are
fake documents.
(iv) Presuming the Certificate and other documents of
highest educational qualification are correct, the said
documents were not issued by the Recognized
Board/University. In the Form 26 Affidavit, the document
or information means to disclose the legally viable
documents.
(v) The applicant falsely declared Non-agricultural
land of his spouse in his Form 26 Affidavit.
(vi) The applicant falsely declared residential buildings
of his spouse in his Form 26 affidavit.
(vii) The applicant falsely declared his non-agricultural
land in his Form 26 affidavit.
[10] Respondent No.2 contended that the present application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for dismissal of the Election Petition
filed by the applicant is not maintainable. It is not a bonafide prayer
and the same has been filed with malafide intention for causing delay
in the trial of the Election Petition and as such it is liable to be dismissed
with heavy cost.
[11] Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for the applicant/
returned candidate submits that FORM-26 requires only to declare
highest educational qualification of the candidate and the same is given
in para 10 of the affidavit as 'Higher Secondary Examination (Class 12)
from PLC Academy, Yairipok, Uttar Purva Siksha Board, Assam in 2019'
and no wrong statement has been furnished by the returned candidate
and marksheet and certificate for passing such examination have also
been enclosed. Whether the Board is recognised or not by the
Government of India has no relevancy with respect to such declaration.
It is highlighted that the candidate has given the true information, but
he cannot be faulted if such Board turns out to be fake as alleged by
the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner tries to impress this
Court by submitting that Para 10 of FORM-26 requires only to give
highest educational qualification along with full details of institute and
year of passing and it does not mention that the course should be from
a recognised institute/board. Since the returned candidate has not
applied for employment, the status of the Board and/or examination is
irrelevant for the purpose under RP Act.
[12] With regard to the allegation of concealment of facts and
furnishing wrong information about the assets, Mr. N. Mahendra,
learned counsel denied the allegations and asserts that there is no
wrong information and no concealment. However, he admits there are
some typographical mistakes with respect to the columns for assets
and same are not fatal and the election of the returned candidate
cannot be declared void on such mistakes. Mere entry in jamabandi
does not confer title over land to the returned candidate in absence of
valid acquisition of right. It is submitted that the averments in the
election petition are vague and do not disclose cause of action for a full
trial. It is prayed that the election petition be dismissed as not
maintainable on the threshold. Reliance is placed on the following
decisions:
(i) Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational
Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust,
(2012) 8 SCC 706 : If the plaint does not disclose any cause
of action, the same can be rejected at any stage and averments
made in the plaint are to be considered alone.
(ii) Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal
Kamat, (2021) 9 SCC 99: To reject a plaint on the ground
that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the
plaint will have to be referred to.
(iii) Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1407: Averments made in the plaint
alone are to be considered and plaint cannot be rejected in
part.
(iv) Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020)
7 SCC 366: In civil suit, trial begins with the framing of issue.
But in election petition, trial starts at the time of filing of EP.
(v) Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC
315: All the facts which are essential to clothe the petition with
complete cause of action must be pleaded and failure to plead
even a single material fact would amount to disobedience of
the mandate of Section 83(1)(a). An election petition therefore
can be and must be dismissed if it suffers from any such vice.
(vi) Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi, (2011) 11 SCC
786: For the purpose of the election petition, the word "trial"
includes the entire proceedings commencing from the time of
filing the election petition till the pronouncement of the
judgment. The court cannot travel beyond the pleadings and
the issue cannot be framed unless there are pleadings to raise
the controversy on a particular fact or law. It is, therefore, not
permissible for the court to allow the party to lead evidence
which is not in the line of the pleadings. Even if the evidence is
led that is just to be ignored as the same cannot be taken into
consideration.
(vii) Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asstt. Charity Commr.,
(2004) 3 SCC 137: For the purposes of deciding an
application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the
Code, the averments in the plaint are germane: the pleas taken
by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly
irrelevant at that stage.
[13] Mr. B R Sharma, learned counsel for the election
petitioner reiterates that in the election petition every detail with
respect to the wrong educational qualification obtained from a non-
recognised Board, the concealments and wrong information regarding
assets of the returned candidate have been mentioned in Para 5 and 6
of the petition. It is emphasised that whether a certificate obtained
from a non-recognised Board will satisfy the requirement of higher
educational qualification as mandated in Para 10 of FORM-26 or not, is
a triable issue to be decided during the trial. It is submitted that the
question of validity and admissibility of a certificate and degree
obtained from a non-recognised Board for the purpose of Para 10 has
to be decided by this Court during the trial on appreciation of evidence
and such a presumption cannot be made as a ground for rejection of
election petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Mistakes in the columns
for immovable property such as sale deed and consideration mentioned
for inherited property have been pointed out in the election petition in
para 5-D. In para 5-E, it has been averred about concealment of
agricultural land. It is submitted that such grounds are triable issues
requiring a full trial for a decisive finding. It is submitted that the
application for rejection of election petition filed by the returned
candidate be dismissed with exemplary cost.
[14] Mr. B R Sharma relies on the following case laws:
(i) D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman, (1999) 3
SCC 267: For the purpose of considering a preliminary
objection, the averments in the petition should be assumed to
be true and the court has to find out whether those averments
disclose a cause of action or a triable issue as such. The election
petition as such does disclose a cause of action which if
unrebutted could void the election and the provisions of Order
7 Rule 11(a) CPC cannot therefore be invoked in this case.
There is no merit in the contention that some of the allegations
are bereft of material facts and as such do not disclose a cause
of action. It is elementary that under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC,
the court cannot dissect the pleading into several parts and
consider whether each one of them discloses a cause of action.
Under the Rule, there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint
or petition.
(ii) P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy, (2015)
8 SCC 331: Rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of
CPC is a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a
civil action at the threshold. The conditions precedent to the
exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11, therefore, are
stringent and have been consistently held to be so by the Court.
It is the averments in the plaint that have to be read as a whole
to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether
the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of
power under Order 7 Rule 11, the stand of the defendants in
the written statement or in the application for rejection of the
plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the
plaint ex facie do not disclose a cause of action or on a reading
thereof the suit appears to be barred under any law the plaint
can be rejected. In all other situations, the claims will have to
be adjudicated in the course of the trial.
(iii) (2021) 9 SCC 99: Only contents of the plaint have to be
examined for the purpose of determination of application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the version and documents of the
defendant are to be examined during the trial.
(iv) Ashraf Kokkur v. K.V. Abdul Khader, (2015) 1 SCC
129: After all, the inquiry under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC is only
as to whether the facts as pleaded disclose a cause of action
and not complete cause of action. The limited inquiry is only to
see whether the petition should be thrown out at the threshold.
In an election petition, the requirement under Section 83 of the
RP Act is to provide a precise and concise statement of material
facts. The expression "material facts" plainly means facts
M C ( E P ) N o . 6 9 o f 2 0 2 3 i n E P N o . 1 3 o f 2 0 2 2 : P a g e 10
pertaining to the subject-matter and which are relied on by the
election petitioner. If the party does not prove those facts, he
fails at the trial.
(v) Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd vs. Ashok
Vidyarthi: 2023 INSC 1043: Only averments in the plaint
would be relevant and documents not forming part of plaint
cannot be looked into at the stage of determination of an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Such documents of the
defendant can be considered at the stage of trial as a
preliminary issue on maintainability.
[15] In conclusion, Mr. B R Sharma, learned counsel for the
election petitioner, submits that the points raised by the petitioner in
the election petition of furnishing wrong information about educational
qualification of the returned candidate and concealment of vital data
about his assets, are in sufficient compliance of the stipulations under
Section 83 of RP Act, 1951 raising a triable issue and hence the election
petition cannot be rejected at the threshold. It is prayed that the
application for rejection of election petition filed by the returned
candidate be dismissed with exemplary cost.
[16] Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2
submits that in the election petition, necessary materials, such as, false
declaration of the highest educational qualification and false declaration
and concealment of information about assets of the returned candidate,
are specifically mentioned with all necessary details within the meaning
of Section 83 of RP Act. It is highlighted that furnishing wrong
information about educational status of a candidate is sufficient for
quashing election of the returned candidate. Wrong information about
M C ( E P ) N o . 6 9 o f 2 0 2 3 i n E P N o . 1 3 o f 2 0 2 2 : P a g e 11
assets in FORM-26 cannot be considered as a typographical mistake.
Reliance is made on the following case laws:
(i) Mairembam Prithviraj v. Pukhrem Sharatchandra
Singh, (2017) 2 SCC 487: The contention of the returned
candidate that the declaration relating to his educational
qualification in the affidavit is a clerical error cannot be
accepted.
(ii) Ashraf Kokkur v. K.V. Abdul Khader, (2015) 1 SCC
129: If there is a triable issue, election petition cannot be
rejected at the threshold stage without trial.
(iii) Madiraju Venkata Ramana Raju v. Peddireddigari
Ramachandra Reddy, (2018) 14 SCC 1: It is well settled
that the election petition will have to be read as a whole and
cannot be dissected sentence-wise or paragraph-wise to rule
that the same does not disclose a cause of action. Cause of
action embodies a bundle of facts which may be necessary for
the plaintiffs to prove in order to get a relief from the Court.
(iv) S. Rukmini Madegowda v. The State Election
Commission: 2022 SCC Online SC 1218, Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that non-disclosure of assets in the affidavit for
election amounts to undue influence and hence a corrupt
practice.
[17] Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2
concludes that the election petition discloses all the material facts as
mandated by Section 83 of RP Act, 1951 for determination of the
validity of the election of the returned candidate and as such the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of election petition
M C ( E P ) N o . 6 9 o f 2 0 2 3 i n E P N o . 1 3 o f 2 0 2 2 : P a g e 12
is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be rejected with
heavy cost.
[18] Mr. Leo Rommel, learned counsel for the respondent No.
3 adopts the submissions made by Mr. B R Sharma and Mr. Ajoy Pebam.
[19] It is stipulated by the provisions of Section 87 of RPA,
1951 that the provisions of CPC will be applicable to the trial of election
petition as nearly as possible subject to the provisions of the Act and
any rules made thereunder. In other words, the rule of CPC will be
applicable in an election petition in consistent with the provisions of
RPA, 1951 and rules made thereunder. In case of any inconsistency,
the provisions of RPA will prevail over the provisions of CPC. From the
above referred para, it is seen that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11
CPC will be applicable in an election petition specially the rules
stipulated under sub-rules (a) and (d) of non-disclosure of cause of
action and barred by limitation. In the case of Dahiben v.
Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali: (2020) 7 SCC 366, the 'cause of
action' is defined as 'every fact which would be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment.
It consists of a bundle of material facts, which are necessary for the
plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the
suit'. In short, the cause of action consists of materials facts for
succeeding in a suit. If such facts are not disclosed on a plain reading
of the plaint, the same can be rejected at the threshold. Limitation is
one of the grounds for rejection of plaint under sub-rule (d) to Order 7
Rule 11 CPC. Apart from the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, Section
86(1) of RPA, 1951 mandates the High Court to dismiss the election
petition for non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 81 (petition
filed beyond 45 days of period of limitation) or Section 82 (non-joinder
M C ( E P ) N o . 6 9 o f 2 0 2 3 i n E P N o . 1 3 o f 2 0 2 2 : P a g e 13
of necessary party) or Section 117 (non-deposit of a sum of Rs.2000/-
as security for cost of the election petition) of the Act. Section 83
stipulates that the concise materials facts and full particular of any
corrupt practices, if alleged in the petition, should be disclosed. Apart
from the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, non-compliance of mandate
of Sections 81, 82, 83 and 117 of RPA, 1951 would be grounds of
rejection of election petition on co-joint reading of principles embodied
in CPC and RPA, 1951.
[20] In sum and substance, the principles of CPC will be
applicable in a proceeding challenging election as far as practicable and
consistent with the provisions of RP Act. Section 83 of RP Act, 1951
mandates disclosure of concise statements of all material facts so as to
make out a triable issue. In other words, there should be materials to
support the allegations made in the election petition to enable to get a
verdict in favour of the petitioner. If such material facts are not
disclosed, the election petition can be nipped in the bud at the very
initial stage under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. For this
purpose, only the averments made in the election petition are to be
considered and the defence version cannot be relied at this stage.
[21] In light of the settled proposition of law, the application
for rejection of election petition has to be considered.
[22] In the present case, the election petitioner has specifically
pleaded that the certificate of passing Class 12 by the returned
candidate is from a Board not recognised by the Government of India
as per Annexure A-4 appended to the petition. The plea of the
returned candidate that the highest qualification may not necessarily
be only from a recognised Board, is not a ground for rejection of
election petition. Such a plea of validity of a certificate from non-
recognised Board/Institute is a question to be decided during the trial.
M C ( E P ) N o . 6 9 o f 2 0 2 3 i n E P N o . 1 3 o f 2 0 2 2 : P a g e 14
In the election petition, it is specifically pointed out about furnishing of
wrong information about the assets and their concealment as narrated
in Para 5-B, 5-C, 5-D and 5-F of the election petition. This Court is of
the considered view that the petitioner has been able to disclose
sufficient materials for framing issues to go for a full trial. Accordingly,
the application being MC(EP) No. 69 of 2023 for rejection of EP No. 13
of 2022 is rejected with cost of Rs. 30,000/- [Rupees thirty thousand
only] to be deposited in favour of Manipur State Legal Services
Authority.
[23] List election petition along with pending applications on
17.09.2024 for further proceeding. Returned candidate is directed to
file proof of payment of cost before the next date.
[24] With these observations and directions, MC(EP) No. 69 of
2023 is disposed of.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Priyojit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR PRIYOJIT
PRIYOJIT SINGH
Date: 2024.08.30
SINGH 16:04:44 +05'30'
M C ( E P ) N o . 6 9 o f 2 0 2 3 i n E P N o . 1 3 o f 2 0 2 2 : P a g e 15
