Manipur High Court
Shri Konthoujam Govindas Singh vs Oinam Nabakishore Singh; & Anr on 20 February, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Digitally
KABORA signed by
KABORAMBAM
MBAM SAPANA
CHANU
SAPANA Date: Item No. 20
2025.02.21
CHANU 10:59:48
+05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC (El. Pet.) No. 49 of 2024
[Ref: El. Petn. No. 9 of 2022]
Shri Konthoujam Govindas Singh
Applicant
Vs.
Oinam Nabakishore Singh; & Anr.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
20.02.2025
[1] Heard Mrs. L. Ayangleima, learned counsel appearing for the
applicant and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 1.
None appeared for the respondent No. 2, despite service of notice.
[2] The present application has been field with a prayer for striking
out the prayer No. 2 of the Election Petition No. 9 of 2022 filed by the
respondent No. 1 herein. For ready reference, prayer No. II of the election
petition is quoted below:-
"(II) To declare the humble petitioner as duly elected candidate
from the 26-Bishenpur Assembly Constituency;"
The only ground raised on behalf of the applicant for striking out
the above quoted prayer No. II is that there is no averment of material facts
in the Election Petition to constitute ingredients incorporated in clause (a)
and (b) of section 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Page 1
It has been strenuously submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the applicant that on perusal of the whole pleadings made by
the election petitioner in the Election Petition, there is no averment of
material facts to constitute the ingredients incorporated in clause (a) and
clause (b) of section 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The
learned counsel further submitted that all the material facts/averments made
by the election petitioner in his Election Petition will never constitute or
constitute the ingredients incorporated under section 101 clause (a) and
clause (b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and as such, the above
quoted prayer No. II may be strike off as consideration of such prayer is
unnecessary and frivolous and will only waste the valuable time of this Court.
It has also been submitted that the material facts or averments made by the
petitioner in the Election Petition will not assist this Court in granting the
relief sought by the petitioner in prayer No. II of his Election Petition and as
such, the said prayer No. II may be strike out as redundant and frivolous. In
support of such contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
"Muniraju Gowda P.M. vs. Munirathna and Others" reported in (2020)
10 SCC 192, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"14. As observed by the High Court, pleadings necessary for the High
Court to form an opinion in terms of clause (a) or clause (b) of
Section 101 of the Act were not there in the election petition. Under
Section 83(1)(a) of the Act, an election petition should contain a
concise statement of material facts. What constitutes "material
facts" would depend upon the ground on which the election of a
returned candidate is challenged. Several grounds are enumerated
in Section 100(1) of the Act and pleading of material facts co-
relatable to the grounds set out in Section 100(1), forms the bedrock
of an election petition.
Page 2
"15. In the election petition, as it was originally filed, there was no
averment of material facts traceable to the ingredients incorporated
in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 101. This is why the first respondent
herein made the first strike by moving an application in IA No. 4 of
2019 for striking out Prayer (c). Actually, IA No. 4 of 2019 was filed
by the first respondent herein on 11-10-2019, pointing out that there
are no necessary pleadings with reference to Section 101.
"18. Once it is found that neither the original election petition nor the
amended election petition contains any pleading of material facts
which would enable the High Court to form an opinion in terms of
Section 101, there was no alternative for the High Court but to strike
off Prayer (c).
"19. There is one more reason why the petitioner cannot succeed. In the
elections in question, there were 14 candidates in the fray, including
the petitioner herein and the first respondent. In Vishwanatha Reddy
v. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda, the Constitution Bench of this
Court treated the votes polled in favour of the returned candidate as
thrown away votes, on the ground that he was disqualified from
contesting and that the election petitioner was entitled to be
declared elected, in view of the fact that there was no other
contesting candidate. But the Constitution Bench cautioned that the
rule for the exclusion of the votes secured by corrupt practices by
the returned candidate in the computation of the total votes and the
consequential declaration of the candidate who secured the next
highest number of votes as duly elected, can be applied only when
there are just two candidates at an election,
"22. Therefore, apart from the fact that in the election petition, there
were no pleadings of material facts co-relatable to the ingredients of
clause (a) or (b) of Section 101 of the Act, to sustain Prayer (c),
even legally the High Court could not have granted Prayer (c) in view
of the fact that there were 14 candidates in the fray.
"23. In view of the above, the order of the High Court does not call for
any interference. Hence these special leave petitions are dismissed.
No costs."
[3] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 1 submitted that the election petitioner made elaborate and
detailed material facts at paragraphs 8-19 of the Election Petition and that
after hearing the submission advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and after perusal of the pleadings made by the parties in the
Election Petition, this Court had framed as many as 23 issues by passing an
order dated 11.01.2023. One of the issue, more particularly issue No. 15
framed by this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as
Page 3
elected member to the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election from 26-
Bishenpur Assembly Constituency.
It has further been submitted that subsequent to framing of such
issues, witnesses produce by both the parties have already been examined
and at this stage, the applicant cannot filed the present application praying
for striking out the above quoted prayer No. II. The learned senior counsel
submitted that the present application is without any merit and is liable to
be rejected outright.
[4] I have heard at length the submissions advance by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
On perusal of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Muniraju Gowda (Supra), more particularly paragraphs 14, 15,
18 and 22 of the judgment, this Court is of the considered view that striking
out of the prayer for declaring the election petitioner as a returned candidate
have been allowed only on the ground that there were no pleadings of
material facts co-relatable to the ingredients of clause (a) or clause (b) of
section 101 of the RP Act, 1951 to sustain such prayer.
In the present case on perusal of the pleadings made by the
election petitioner in paragraphs No. 8 to 19 of the Election Petition, this
Court finds that elaborate and detailed material facts have been pleaded for
considering the issue as to whether there is any pleadings of material facts
co-relatable to the ingredients of clause (a) or clause (b) of section 101 of
the RP Act, 1951.
Page 4
In view of such finding, this Court had already made issue No. 15
in the Election Petition. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the ratio
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Muniraju Gowda
(Supra) is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present
case and this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer made by the applicant
in the present application.
In the result, the present application is hereby dismissed as being
devoid of merit.
JUDGE
Sapana
Page 5
