LAMBOKLANG MYLLIEM Vs. BARNABAS NONGBAH
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE instant petition is filed by the petitioner/respondent praying for striking out Para -17, 18, 19, 20, 23(a), 23 (b), 23(c), 23(d), 24, 25,
26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Election Petition bearing No. 2 of 2013 and further prayed for rejection of the Election Petition. In other words, it
can be said that the petitioner/respondent challenged the maintainability
of the Election Petition No. 2 of 2013.
(2.) MR . D Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing for on behalf of petitioner argued that the Election Petition does not disclosed how and
in what manner opposite party has materially affected. Since the
averments of the Election Petition No. 2 of 2013 are silent about the
materially affected, therefore, it cannot survive. The learned counsel
further argued that, the averments made in the Election Petition is a
mere statement without any supporting materials, hence, from that point
of view also the Election Petition No. 2 of 2013 has no legs to stand and
needs to be rejected.
Mr. AK Bhattacharjee, the learned senior counsel appearing for on behalf of the opposite party argued that the petitioner failed to
disclose his real assets and liabilities which is one of the requirements
under The Representation of People Act. By not disclosing the assets and
liabilities, he has deprived the statutory rights of the voters of the
constituency. The learned senior counsel further argued that, had the
petitioner disclosed his assets and liabilities his nomination paper
would have been rejected as he has huge dues to be paid to the
Government, therefore, the contentions advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioner are not correct, so the petition may be rejected.
(3.) IN course of the arguments, the learned counsel relied on (2012) 11 SCC 390 reported in the case of Shambu Prasad Sharma vrs Charandas Mahant
& Ors; (2012) 3 SCC 314 reported in the case of Mangani Lal Mandal vrs
Bishnu Deo Bhandari; (2009) 10 SCC 541 reported in the case of Ram Sukh
vrs Dinesh Aggarwal; AIR (1954) Vol. 41 reported in the case of Vashist
Narain Sharma vrs Dev Chandra & Ors.; (2003) 4 SCC 399 reported in the
case of People 's Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. Vrs Union of India &
Anr.; (2002) 5 SCC 294 reported in the case of Union of India vrs
Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr.; (2011) 2 SCC 532 reported in
the case of Kalyan Kumar Gogoi vrs Ashutosh Agnihotri & Anr. and Election
Petition No. 10 of 2004 passed by Bombay High Court reported in the case
of Shri. Arun Dattatray Sawant vrs Shri. Kisan Shankar Kathore dated 16th
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.