Manipur High Court: In an election petition filed by Leishangthem Susindro Meitei, (‘applicant’) MLA, Manipur, the election petition filed against him was sought to be dismissed, wherein his election to the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly was sought to be set aside, the Single Judge Bench of Additional Chief Justice M.V. Muralidaran J., allowed the applicant’s petition and dismissed the election petition filed against him on the grounds that no cause of action was made out against him as essentially required under Sections 100 and Section 83(1)(b) and other provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Background
An election petition was filed by Laitonjam Jayananda Singh, (‘first election petitioner’) member of National People’s Party to set aside the election of the applicant to the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly from 3-Khurai Legislative Assembly Constituency after declaring the election of the applicant from the said constituency as void on the grounds of improper acceptance of nomination and filing of false affidavit under Form 26, non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution of India and the Representation of People Act, 1951. (‘the RPA, 1951’)
While the said election petition was pending, the applicant preferred the present election petition under Order 7, Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) read with Sections 81, 83, 86 and 87 of the RPA, 1951 to dismiss the election petition filed against him on the grounds that there was no cause of action and if further proceedings of the election petition were allowed sans any foundation and cause of action it would prejudice, embarrass, and cause injustice to the applicant.
Court’s Decision
The Court perused Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC and said that ‘cause of action’ means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove. It consists of a bundle of material facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit. The Court further said that ‘cause of action’ is a term of art and has been described by the Supreme Court as well as by the Court as a concise statement of material facts as also full particulars (where corrupt practice at an election is alleged), on which the election petitioner relies for making out corrupt practice as a ground for setting aside an election. A cause of action challenging an election on the ground of corrupt practice requires a full statement containing the names of the parties alleged to have committed the corrupt practice and the details, date and place of the commission of such corrupt practice.
The Court said that merely stating in the election petition that the cause of action arose on 10-03-2022 when final result was published was not enough to maintain the election petition filed by the first election petitioner. The election petitioner was duty bound to aver the cause of action, properly matching the allegations levelled against the returned candidate/ applicant. The Court viewed that in the case at hand, there was absence of mentioning of proper cause of action for maintaining the election petition by the first election petitioner.
Further, the Court said that the first election petitioner was unable to make out a case of corrupt practice in his pleadings and the necessary particulars, statement of facts, essential ingredients were missing and a mere averment of corrupt practice, without there being any material available on record, was not sustainable in the eyes of law.
The Court stated that “right to elect, though it is fundamental to democracy, is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right, it is purely a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. De hors the statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election”. The Court said that an election petition is neither an action at common law nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the common law nor the principles of equity apply, but only those rules which are made by the statute are applicable. The entire election process commencing from the issuance of the notification calling upon a constituency to elect a member or members right upto the final resolution of the dispute, if any, concerning the election, is regulated by the RPA, 1951. The law relating to election being statutory in character must be adhered to strictly. The election petition must conform to the requirements of election law. Unless grounds under section 100 of the RPA, 1951 are proved, no election of a successful candidate can be set aside. Section 100 of the RPA, 1951 speaks about the grounds for declaring election to be void and the election of a returned candidate.
The Court said that as the as the first election petitioner was unable to make out the case of corrupt practice as pleaded in the election petition and the ingredient of corrupt practice was missing in the election petition. Therefore, the Court said that the ground available under Section 100 of the RPA, 1951, was not available to the first election petitioner. The Court also referred to F.A. Sapa v. Singora, (1991) 3 SCC 375, wherein, it was held that while there is sufficient justification for the law to be harsh with those who indulge in such practices, there is also the need to ensure that such allegations are made with a sense of responsibility and concern and not merely to vex the returned candidate. Thus, the Court said that the law envisages that the particulars of such allegations shall be set out fully disclosing the name of the party responsible for the same and the date and place of its commission.
The Court also said that mere allegation that the applicant distributed tab/tablets during the election campaign does not constitute a cause of action. As far as election petition was concerned, particulars must have been given in the election petition qua the alleged distribution of tab/tablets to children of the voters.
The Court noted that in the instant case, the averments made in the election petition were not supported by an affidavit in the prescribed form as per the requirement of Section 83 of the RPA, 1951. The Court said that the affidavit under Form 25 filed by the first election petitioner in support of the averments made in the election petition in the prescribed form as prescribed under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 was vague and bereft of material particulars. Further, the Court said that as per Section 86 (Trial of election petitions) of the RPA, 1951, in case the election petition does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117, the High Court shall dismiss the same without proceeding with the trial of the election petition.
The Court also said that it is a settled law that if the election petition is based solely on the allegations which suffer from lack of material facts, the election petition is liable to be summarily rejected for want of a cause of action.
The Court said that an election petition can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC if it does not disclose a cause of action. Pleadings could also be struck out under Order VI Rule 16, inter alia, if they are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. An election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts on which the election petitioner relies. It should also contain full particulars of any corrupt practice that the election petitioner alleges including a full statement of names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of commission of such practice. Such election petition shall be signed by the election petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the CPC for the verification of pleadings. It should be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegations of such practice and particulars thereof. All materials facts, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the RPA, 1951, must be set out in the election petition. If the material facts are not stated in a petition, it is liable to be dismissed on that ground as the case would be covered by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the RPA, 1951 read with clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code.
Further, the Court said that it is the duty of the Court to examine the plaint and it need not wait till the defendant files a written statement and points out the defects. If the Court on examination of the plaint or the election petition finds that it does not disclose any cause of action it would be justified in striking out the pleadings. The object of the provisions of the RPA, 1951 and the CPC is to ensure that meaningless litigation, which is otherwise bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to occupy the judicial time of the Courts.
The Court noted that the entire election petition was about the affidavit in Form 26 dated 05-02-2022 of the applicant and no nomination paper dated 05-02-2022 of the applicant was filed or enclosed by the first election petitioner in the election petition. On the other hand, the election petitioner enclosed the affidavit in Form 26 of the applicant dated 07-02-2022 and the entire pleadings of the election petition speaks about the affidavit dated 05-02-2022 only. Therefore, the election petition against the applicant was liable to be dismissed, as there was no cause of action sans the contentious affidavit dated 05-02-2022. Further, the Court said that the lacuna for deliberate mistake of not enclosing the affidavit and nomination form dated 05-02-2022 and another affidavit dated 05-02-2022 may not be allowed or rectified under any circumstances as per the RPA, 1951. The date of publication of result of the election alone cannot constitute the cause of action for challenging the election of the applicant/returned candidate.
Therefore, the election petitioner had utterly failed to disclose prima facie triable issue and was not able to make out any cause of action from the pleadings made in the election petition and in absence of material facts no cause of action was made out which is essentially required as per the mandatory provisions of Sections 100, 83(1)(b) and other provisions of the RPA, 1951 as well as the provisions of the CPC. In the case on hand, the cause of action was not in consonance with the allegations leveled. Thus, the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the applicant was allowed. As a result, the election petition against the applicant was dismissed on the grounds that did not make out any cause of action or triable issue.
[Leishangthem Susindro Meitei v. Laitonjam Jayananda Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine Mani 173, Decided on 01-06-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: Senior Advocate N. Ibotombi, Advocate A. Golly, Advocate H. Suraj;
For the Respondents: Senior Advocate HS Paonam, Advocate A. Arunkumar, Advocate M. Tapan Sharma, Advocate Ajoy Pebam.
