LORHO S. PFOZE Vs. HOULIM SHOKHOPAO MATER
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Lorho S. Pfoze
Houlim Shokhopao Mater
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicant under Order VII, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking 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.
(2.) The applicant herein is the first respondent in the election petition and he has filed the present petition stating that he defeated the election petitioner by a huge margin of 73,782 votes. According to the applicant, he is seeking rejection of the election petition in accordance with the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, as the election petition failed to disclose the actual cause of action against the respondents in terms of the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').
(3.) The case of the applicant is that the alleged violation of Section 33 of the said Act stated by the election petitioner is irrelevant for consideration of declaring the election of the applicant as void and therefore, the provision as enunciated by the election petitioner would not in any manner attract for consideration as to whether a cause of action for declaring the election of the applicant as void. Though the election petitioner stated number of Provisions of the said Act, the Conduct of Election Rules as well as other notifications/guidelines/ circulars, he has failed to specifically pleaded any kind of the violation and non-compliance of the aforesaid Acts, Rules and guidelines. Thus, the provision as enunciated by the election petitioner would not in any manner attract for consideration as to whether a cause of action for declaring the election of the applicant as void.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.