DR. R. LALTHANGLIANA Vs. CHALROSANGA RALTE AND OTHERS
LAWS(GAU)-2014-9-79
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on September 06,2014

Dr. R. Lalthangliana Appellant
VERSUS
Chalrosanga Ralte And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAM SUKH V. DINESH AGGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
JITU PATNAIK V. SANATAN MOHAKUD [REFERRED TO]
ANANGA UDAY SINGH DEO V. RANGA NATH MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
AZHAR HUSSAIN V. RAJIV GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
B. SUNDARA RAMI REDDY V. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DHARTIPAKAR MADAN LAL AGARWAL V. SHRI RAJIV GANDHI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Ujjal Bhuyan, J. - (1.)Heard Mr. Lalsawirema, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 1 (returned candidate) and Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 1/election petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned senior counsel for Election Commission of India.
(2.)This is an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for rejection of the election petition for want of cause of action and for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act').
(3.)Rejection of the election petition has been sought for primarily on three grounds. Firstly, the election petition does not disclose material facts to constitute a cause of action to warrant trial of the election petition. Secondly, the prayer made in the election petition is beyond the relief which can be granted to an election petitioner under the Act. Thirdly, since the election petitioner has sought for a declaration that not only the election of the returned candidate be declared as void, he should also be declared as the elected candidate, all the other contesting candidates of the constituency should have been made parties to the election petition, which has not been done. This is a violation of the mandatory provision of Sec. 82 of the Act.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.