Manipur High Court
Lucy Y. Antas Khan vs Lucy Gurumayum on 21 July, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
1
Item No. 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
EL. Pet. No. 18 of 2022
LUCY Y. Antas Khan Petitioner
GURUMAYUM
Digitally signed by
Vs.
LUCY GURUMAYUM
Date: 2025.07.22
11:14:00 +05'30'
Mohd Abdul Nasir & 3 Ors Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
21.07.2025
[1] None appears for the Election petitioner.
[2] Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S.
Gunabanta, learned counsel appeared for the respondent no. 1 and Mr.
BR Sharma, learned counsel appeared for respondent no. 4.
[3] As against respondent no. 2 & 3 the proceeding of the Election
Petition has been proceeded as ex-parte.
[4] It has been submitted by the learned Sr. counsel appearing for
respondent no. 1 that the counsel representing the Election Petitioner
has determined himself by filing a determination application. The ground
given by the counsel in the determination application is that the Election
Petitioner did not extend any corporation and as such he cannot continue
with the proceedings of the Election Petition. Taking into consideration,
the ground given in the determination application, the determination
application was allowed.
[5] It has also been submitted that on various occasions, neither
the Election petitioner nor any of his counsel appeared when the matter
was taken up and as such the proceeding of the Election Petitioner
cannot be continued. Today also none appeared on behalf of the Election
2
Petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 1 prays for dismissing the Election Petition as well as the
connected application for non-prosecution. In support of his contention,
learned Sr. counsel for the respondent no. 1 have filed an application
registered as MC(EL. Pet.) No. 17 of 2025 praying for dismissing the
Election Petition and connected application for non-prosecution.
[6] I have heard the submission advanced by the learned Sr.
counsel and also perused the earlier proceedings in connection with the
Election Petition as recorded in the order sheet. On examination of the
proceedings of the Election Petition, it is ascertained that the Election
Petitioner has been absent on various occasions and the petitioner has
failed to proceed with the said Election Petition. In the case of Dr. P.
Nalla Thampy Thera vs B.L. Shanker and Ors reported in 1984
(Supp) Supreme Court Cases 631 it has been, inter alia, held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court as under:-
“15. We proceed next to examine whether the election petition could be
dismissed in the absence of the election petitioner and whether the
appellant could apply for its restoration though he himself was not the
election petitioner. The basis of the appellant’s contention that the
election petition cannot be dismissed for the absence of the election
petitioner is that once an election petition is filed, it concerns the entire
constituency. Purity of the electoral process in a democracy, it is
contended, is of paramount importance and an election petition cannot
be permitted to be dismissed for default inasmuch as that would lead to
situations brought about by manipulation, undue influence, fraud or
winning over of the election petitioner. The second respondent’s
counsel has not disputed before us and rightly in our view that purity of
the electoral process is paramount in a democracy and an election
petition should not be permitted to be abandoned by undue influence or
pressure over the election petitioner. It may be pointed out that there
was no allegation of undue influence or pressure over the election
petitioner to justify his conduct in this case. It is relevant to mention
that the second respondent who was the elected candidate was
expelled from the Lok Sabha in December 1978, and in August 1979,
the Lok Sabha to which respondent 2 had been elected was dissolved.
It was after these supervening events that in October 1979 the request
to delete prayer (c) was made and the other orders followed. This
3explanation given by respondent 2’s counsel to justify the conduct of
the election petitioner is a relevant feature.
16. There is no support in the statute for the contention of the appellant
that an election petition cannot be dismissed for default. The appellant
contended that default of appearance or non-prosecution of the election
petition must be treated as on par with withdrawal or abatement and,
therefore, though there is no clear provision in the Act, the same
principle should govern and the obligation to notify as provided in
Section 110 or 116 of the Act should be made applicable. We see no
justification to accept such a contention. Non-prosecution or
abandonment is certainly not withdrawal. Withdrawal is a positive and
voluntary act while non-prosecution or abandonment may not
necessarily be an act of volition. It may spring from negligence,
indifference, inaction or even incapacity or inability to prosecute. In the
case of withdrawal steps are envisaged to be taken before the Court in
accordance with the prescribed procedure. In the case of non-
prosecution or abandonment, the election petitioner does not appear
before the Court and obtain any orders. We have already indicated that
the Act is a self-contained statute strictly laying down its own procedure
and nothing can be read in it which is not there nor can its provisions
be enlarged or extended by analogy. In fact, the terms of Section 87 of
the Act clearly prescribe that if there be no provision in the Act to the
contrary, the provisions of the Code would apply and that would include
Order 9, Rule 8 of the Code, under which an election petition would be
liable to be dismissed if the election petitioner does not appear to
prosecute the election petition.
17. In many cases it has been held that an election petition can be
dismissed for default. A Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in Jugal
Kishore v. Dr. Baldev Parkash, had occasion to consider this question
when Grover, J. delivering the judgment of the Court spoke thus:
It has been repeatedly said that an election petition once filed is
not a contest only between the parties thereto but continues for
the benefit of the whole constituency. It is for that purpose that
in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provisions have
been made in Sections 109 and 110 relating to withdrawal of an
election petition and Sections 112 and 116 relating to abatement
of such a petition the effect of which is that the petition cannot
come to an end by the withdrawal thereof by the death of the
petitioner or by the death or withdrawal of opposition by the
respondent, but is liable in such cases to be continued by any
person who might have been a petitioner. There is nothing in
the entire Act providing or indicating that a similar procedure is
to be followed in the event of a petitioner failing to prosecute
the petition. Such failure can be due to various causes. The
4petitioner can, by force of circumstances, be genuinely rendered
helpless to prosecute the petition. For instance, he may find that
his financial condition has suddenly worsened and that he can
no longer afford the expenses of litigation He may even, owing
to exigencies of business or vocation or profession, have to go
to such a distant place from the seat of the High Court where
the election petition is being tried that he may find it impossible
to prosecute the petition in a proper manner. There would be
two courses open to him and that will depend entirely on his
volition. He can either file an application for withdrawal of the
petition disclosing the circumstances which have brought about
such a situation in which case there would be no difficulty in
following the procedure laid down in Sections 109 and 110 of
the Act, or he may choose to simply absent himself from the
Court or cease to give any instructions to the counsel engaged
by him or fail to deposit the process-fee and the diet-money for
witnesses or take the necessary steps for summoning the
witnesses in which case the Court will have no option but to
dismiss the election petition under the provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure which would be applicable to the election
petitions in the absence of any express provisions in the Act.
The dismissal will have to be under the provisions contained in
Order 9 or Order 17 of the Code.
It is quite clear that there is no distinct provision in the Act
laying down any particular or special procedure which is to be
followed when the petitioner chooses to commit default either in
appearance or in production of evidence or generally in
prosecuting the petition. The provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure would, therefore, be applicable under Section 87 of
the Act. I am further of the opinion that any argument which
could be pressed and was adopted for saying that the inherent
powers of the Court could not be exercised in such
circumstances would be of no avail now as the High Court is a
Court of Record and possesses all the inherent powers of a court
while trying election petitions.
It is relevant to note the observations of Hidayatullah, C.J. in Sunderlal
Mannalal v. Nandramdas Dwarkadas, where he indicated: (AIR p. 261,
para 5)
Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal. But it is
axiomatic that no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a
proceeding before it when the party who has moved it has not
appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore,
is an inherent power which every tribunal possesses…
5
18. Similar view bas been expressed by another Full Bench of the
Allahabad High Court in Duryodhan v. Sitaram. A four-Judge Bench of
this Court in Rajendra Kumari Bajpai v. Ram Adhar Yadav, referred to
the Punjah case. Fazal Ali, J. speaking on behalf of the Court quoted a
portion of the judgment of Grover, J. which we have cited above and
said: (SCC p. 453, para 10)We fully approve of the line of reasoning adopted by the High
Court in that case.
It, therefore, follows that the Code is applicable in disposing of an
election petition when the election petitioner does not appear or take
steps to prosecute the election petition. Dismissal of an election perition
for default of appearance of the petitioner under the provisions of either
Order IX or Order XVII of the Code would, therefore, be valid and
would not be open to challenge on the ground that these provisions
providing for dismissal of the election petition for default do not apply.”
[7] In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically
held that the Election Petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution as
provided under Order IX or Order XVII of the CPC.
[8] In view of the failure on the part of the Election Petitioner to
prosecute the present Election Petition and in view of the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera
vs B.L. Shanker and Ors reported in 1984 (Supp), this Court is of
the considered view that there is force and substance in the submission
advance by the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1.
Accordingly the present Election Petition as well as all the connected
applications are hereby dismissed for non-prosecution.
JUDGE
Lucy
[ad_1]
Source link