Special leave petition cannot affect the proceedings of instant election petition – Manipur high court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL MC(EP) No.221 Ref:Election Petion No.19 Shri Lorho S.Pfoze aged about 59 years S O Late A. Sibo Pfoze resident of Kayinu Village P.O. & P.S. Mao District Senapati Manipur 795150. Versus . Applicant 1. Houlim Shokhopao Mate @ Benjamin aged about 36 years S OH. Jamkhokhai Mate resident of Tengnoupal Village PO & PS Tengnoupal District Tengnoupal Manipur 795131. 2. Angam Karung Kom aged about 65 years S O Late Ashong Kom resident of K.R. Lane PO & PS Porompat District Imphal East Manipur 795005 3. Shri Hangkhngpau Taithul aged about 55 years S O Late T. Doupu resident of Singngat Hausa Veng PO & PS Singngat Churachandpur District Manipur 795139 4. Mr. Ashang Kasar @ Wungnaishang Kasar @ Wungnao Shang Kasar aged about 43 years S O Ngashathing Kasar resident of MC(EP) No.221. Page 1 Chadong Village PO & PS Litan Kamjong District Manipur 795145 5. Leikhan Kaipu aged about 54 years S O Late Leikhan Kokan resident of Heikakpokpi Village PO Pallel P.S. Machi Machi Sub Division Tengnoupal District Manipur 795135 6. Thangminlien Kipgen aged about 64 years S O Late Thangpu Kipgen resident of Haipi Village PO Kalapahar Kangpokpi District Manipur 795122 7. Shri K. James aged about 56 years S O Late K. Ngatangmi resident of Tangkhul Hungdung Khullen PO Lamlong P.S. Litan Kamjong District Manipur 795010 Presently residing at JIM Blessing Home Sangaiprou Mamang Leikai Airport Airport Road PO & PS Singjamei Imphal West District Manipur 795008. …. Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN For the Applicant For the Respondents Mr.B.R. Sharma Advt. Mr.Ajoy Pebam Adv. Date of hearing & reserved Date of Judgment & Order MC(EP) No.221. Page 2 JUDGMENT & ORDER This application has been filed by the applicant to defer the further proceedings of the Election Petition No.19 for a reasonable period or till such time the SLP under Dairy No.104621 is considered by the Hon’ble Supreme The applicant is the first respondent in the election petition. Heard Mr. B.R Sharma learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Ajoy Pebam learned counsel for the first respondent election petitioner. Mr. B.R. Sharma learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier the applicant has filed M.C.(EP) No.220 under order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking to dismiss the election petition as the election petition has failed to disclose the cause of action in terms of the relevant provisions of the representation of the People Act 1951 and by the order dated 25.3.2021 this Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same the applicant has filed SLP in Dairy No.10469 of 2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same shall be considered by MC(EP) No.221. Page 3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore in the interest of justice this Court may defer the further proceedings of the election petition till the disposal of the SLP. On the other hand Mr.Ajoy Pebam learned counsel for the first respondent election petitioner submitted that in order to delay the proceedings and trial of the main election petition the applicant has filed the present application and mere filing of SLP cannot affect the proceeding of the election petition. He would submit that the SLP is not yet registered as the same was under defect list. Learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that there is no provision for deferring the proceeding of the main election petition and the trial of the election petition is a special trail and Chapter III of the Representation of the People Act 1951 provides for trial of election petitions. Further this is a very ill intentional tactic adopted by the applicant to delay the trial and waste the valuable time of this Court. This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record. MC(EP) No.221. Page 4 The prayer of the applicant is to defer hearing of the main election petition till SLP Diary No.10469 of 2021 is considered by the Hon’ble Supreme It appears that earlier the applicant has filed M.C.No.220 before this Court under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying 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 People Act 1951. By a detailed order dated 25.3.2021 this Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same the application preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court assigned Diary No.104621. According to the first respondent the said SLP was under defect list and only to delay the trial in the election petition the applicant has filed the present Mere filing of SLP before the Hon’ble Court cannot affect the proceeding of the main election petition and moreover as admitted by the applicant the SLP is not yet registered and in fact the said SLP was under defect list. There is no interim order restraining this Court from proceeding with the main election petition. MC(EP) No.221. Page 5 At this juncture it is to be noted that it has become a continuous practice of the applicant to file application after application in order to delay the matter. For example the very same applicant has filed M.C.No.321 to reject the replication filed by the first respondent herein contrary to the submission made by him in M.C.No.221. It is informed that the said SLP Diary No.104621 is likely to be listed on 14.12.2021. Since the SLP has not yet been numbered and there is no interim order restraining this Court from proceeding with the election petition further this Court is of the view that deferring the further proceedings of the election petition is not appropriate. The election petition is of the year 2019. Section 86(7) of the Representation of People Act provides that every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date on which the election is presented to the High Court for trial. In the Instant case almost more than two years have been passed and the election petition has not seen the result. MC(EP) No.221. Page 6 It is reiterated that mere filing of the SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as against the order of dismissal of M.C.No.220 cannot affect the proceeding of the instant election petition and moreover there is no interim order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court restraining this Court from proceeding with the main election petition. Further this Court is of the view that only in order to protract the proceedings in the trial of the election petition the applicant has filed the instant application and the same cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly M.C.No.221 is dismissed. No costs. John kom MC(EP) No.221. Page 7 

Summary: Special leave petition cannot affect the proceedings of instant election petition – Manipur high court  Special leave petition filed before the honorable supreme court against the order of dismissal cannot affect the proceedings of instant election petition held in a judgment given by a single bench judge HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN in the case of Shri Lorho S.Pfoze versus Angam Karung Kom and ors. (MC(EP) No.21 of 2021) The application is filed by applicants to stop the further proceedings of the election petition for the time till the special leave petition is being heard in the Hon’ble Supreme supreme court. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that  the applicant has filed SLP in Dairy No.10469of 2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same shall be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. therefore till that time, the Court may defer the further proceedings of the election petition till the disposal of the SLP. the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that to delay the proceedings and trial of the main election petition, the application was filed and the mere filing of SLP cannot affect the proceeding of the election petition as the SLP is not registered under the defect list and also submitted that there is no provision for deferring the proceeding of the main election petition and the trial of the election petition is a special trail and Chapter III of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for trial of election petitions. The court considered the submissions made and considered that Mere filing of SLP before the Hon’ble Court cannot affect the proceeding of the main election petition and the SLP has not been registered yet and is under defect list. There is no interim order restraining this Court from proceeding with the main election petition and this Court is of the view that deferring the further proceedings of the election petition is not appropriate and every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date. Further, the applicant has filed the instant application and the same cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed.