Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision :02.04.2026 vs Shri Gavin Miguel Mylliem on 2 April, 2026
Author: H.S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S. Thangkhiew
2026:MLHC:297
Serial No. 01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
El. Pet. No. 2 of 2023
Date of Decision :02.04.2026
Shri Titosstar Well Chyne,
S/o (L) R. Diantonath Khyllep, aged about 55 years,
R/o Khlieh Shnong, Sohra,
Opposite R.K.M. Mission Higher Secondary School,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793111.
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Shri Gavin Miguel Mylliem,
S/o Shri Winston Mark Simon Pariat, aged about 31 years,
R/o House No. 171, Umthli Village, Umthli, Pynursla,
S.O. East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793110.
2. Shri Alan West Kharkongor,
S/o Priska Kharkongor, aged about 49 years,
R/o Maraikaphon, Sohra,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793108
3. Shri Harold Firming Khongsit,
S/o (L) Bendromuney Songs Nongpluh, aged 60 years,
R/o Diengsong, Sohra, P.O. Sohra P.S. Sohra,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793108.
4. Smt. Lakyntiew Sohkhlet,
W/o Shri George Peter Lawbor, aged 35 years,
R/o Maraikaphon, Shora Village,
P.O. & P.S. Sohra
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793108
5. Shri Michael Ronnie Kshiar,
S/o Shri Willingdone Bareh aged 50 years,
R/o 85-Nongshiliang, South & Lower Nongthymmai, Shillong
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793014
Page 1 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
6. Smt. G. Phaiyolin Nongrum,
W/o Greatson Swer, aged a 60 years
R/o Laitryngew Village,
C/o Advocate Phila K. Nongrum,
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793108
... Respondent(s)
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. Jotendra Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. A. Kharshiing, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.S. Pandey, Adv. with
Mr. A.M. Pala, Adv.
Ms. K.C.H. Nongrum, Adv.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1. By way of MC (EP) No. 19 of 2023 in the present Election
Petition, the respondent had preferred an application under Section 86 of
Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the
Gauhati High Court Rules, (as adopted by the High Court of Meghalaya).
The grounds taken were that the Election petition is ex-facie barred by
Page 2 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
Section 86 of the Act being filed in violation of Sections 81, 82 & 83 of the
said Act. This Court then by order dated 31.10.2023, disposed of the said
Misc. Case by holding that as it could not be conclusively ascertained
whether the election petitioner was present or not at the time of presentation,
the issue raised by the respondent needed to be taken up as a preliminary
issue for consideration by the adducing of evidence. Thereafter, this Court
by order dated 21.02.2024, after suggested issues had been filed by the
parties, framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Election Petition was presented as per Section 81 of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 and Rule-1 to Chapter VIII A of
the Gauhati High Court Rules, as adopted by the High Court of
Meghalaya.
2. Whether the Stamp Reporter followed the Note II of Rule 1 to
Chapter VIII A as adopted by the High Court of Meghalaya, in
accepting the Election Petition.
2. The election petitioner and two witnesses on his behalf, then
filed their Examination-in-Chief by way of affidavits on 20.05.2024. In the
intervening period however, before the Cross-Examination could be
conducted, the respondent filed an application being MC (EP) No. 4 of 2024
under Section 379 of the BNSS 2023, wherein the respondent No. 1, raised
allegations of the election petitioner furnishing a false affidavit for the
purpose of being used in a judicial proceeding. This was then followed by
an application being MC (EP) No. 8 of 2024 by the election petitioner,
Page 3 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
seeking replacement of his statement (Examination-in-Chief) on affidavit
filed on 20.05.2024, by another statement (Examination-in-Chief) on
affidavit. This Court then by order dated 28.11.2024, after hearing the parties
observed that the earlier statement having been made on oath and the same
being vital to the proceedings of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC,
the prayer of the election petitioner for replacement of the affidavit was
rejected. Paragraphs 15 & 16 of the order dated 28.11.2024 being relevant
are reproduced hereinbelow: –
“15. In the backdrop of this legal position, in considering the
facts of this case, what can clearly be seen is that the
redaction or recall of that part of the Evidence on Affidavit
which has been sought for by the election petitioner is with
regard to a statement that has been made on oath as to the
date of the presentation of the Election Petition, which is in
variance with the statements made in the body of the Election
Petition. It is not a case where the statement made is of no
relevance, or that the recall sought is of documents that are
yet to be proved, but is a statement which touches the core
issue in dispute. The Courts in such situations can well
exercise discretionary powers to allow redaction or
replacement or deletion, if the same in its considered view is
of not much relevance. As all cases stand on their own
peculiar footing or circumstance, a common yardstick in the
exercise of this inherent power, is not available and this
power necessarily will have to be judiciously exercised taking
into consideration all relevant factors. In this particular case,
the statement having been made on oath, in the considered
view of this Court, the same being vital to the proceedings of
the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the prayer of the
election petitioner for replacement of the affidavit cannot be
acceded to and is denied.
Page 4 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
16. On the other issue i.e. whether the election petitioner and
the other 2 witnesses are liable to be prosecuted in terms of
Section 379 of the BNSS, 2023 read with Section 193 of the
IPC, 1860 read with Section 229 of BNS, 2023, in the
considered view of this Court the purported inaccurate
statement i.e. the date of presentation will not amount to a
misdemeanour or a transgression that requires inquiry or
any further orders, as the same is a contradiction in facts
which the election petitioner will have to overcome in the
course of the proceedings. As such, the Misc. applications
being Misc. Case (EP) No. 4 of 2024, Misc. Case (EP) No. 5
of 2024, Misc. Case (EP) No. 6 of 2024, Misc. Case (EP) No.
8 of 2024, Misc. Case (EP) No. 9 of 2024, and Misc. Case
(EP) No. 10 of 2024 are closed.”
3. In his Examination-in-Chief, the election petitioner apart from
the other statements had stated that the Election petition was sworn before
the Notary Public on 12.04.2023 in the afternoon, and thereafter at about
3:00 P.M. of the same day, he along with the other two witnesses and the
conducting counsel had tendered the election petition for filing before the
Stamp Reporter. In the Cross-Examination, which was conducted on
20.05.2025, the election petitioner’s most significant statements concern the
events of 11th and 12th April, 2023, wherein he states that on 12.04.2023, he
along with the other two witnesses left Sohra at around 9:00 A.M and admits
that he was not carrying any copies of the Election petition or its annexures
with him from Sohra. He has pleaded ignorance of the basic facts as to how
many copies were signed before the Notary or the exact process involved.
Page 5 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
The relevant extract from the Cross-Examination is reproduced
hereinunder:-
“On 12/04/2023, I, Mr. J. Kynta and Mr. B. Malngiang
left Sohra around 9 AM, my driver (Phil) drove the vehicle
(Fortuner white in colour). 1 was not carrying the copies of
the Election Petition, I met my counsel in Shillong. 1 have no
knowledge of how many copies of the Election Petition are
required in the instant matter. I did not carry any copies of
the Annexures with me, while coming from Sohra to Shillong.
We came separately in our separate cars. I received the
intimation to come to Shillong on the 10/04/2023. 1 cannot
remember whether I stop in my journey from Sohra to
Shillong. I have prior experience of swearing a document
before the Notary. I utilize the services of Shri. N. Kharnabi
for notarization in the present case, and this is the first time I
had been to his office. It was an old building from which the
Notary operates. I cannot remember as to how many people
were there when the Election Petition was notarized. Witness
volunteers to say that only he and his counsels were there at
the time of notarization and he does not recognizes other
people. I remember the Oath administered to me regarding
the correctness of my statement in the affidavit. I cannot
remember whether any specific procedure was undertaken in
respect of notarization of the Election Petition, as there were
many papers, I cannot remember as to how many copies 1
signed before the notary. I cannot remember the exact
procedure adopted by the Notary. I do not agree to the
suggestions that the Notary did not record the notarization in
the Notary register. I remember signing in each and every
page of the Election Petition. I do not remember whether each
and every page of the Petition was notarised. I agree that
election petition could not have been filed without proper
notarization. My counsel bought the Court fee for me. Yes, I
do understand the meaning of presentation of a document. I
have not present any election petition previously. On
12/04/2023, I came to High Court for presenting the Election
Petition. I do not agree that I am deposing falsely on oath as
the aspect of coming to the High Court on the subsequent date
is not reflected on affidavit. I did not come to the High CourtPage 6 of 28
2026:MLHC:297on the day of notarization, as there was still time for me to
come to the High Court for filing of the Election Petition. I
do not remember as to when the limitation period of filing the
Election Petition was over. The counsel for the respondents
confronting the witness with the attendance register of the
High Court for 12/04/2023, and the same is marked as Exhibit
R1.
(the counsel for the Election Petitioner objected on the
witness being confronted with the attendance sheet dated
12/04/2023) (Exhibit R1)
According to the document produced I cannot show my
name reflecting in the attendance sheet. Around 3 PM, I came
to the High Court premise on the subsequent date for filing of
the Election Petition. After coming to the High Court, 1
straight away approached the Registry of the High Court,
Registry is in the 2nd Floor. I do not know as to who is the
responsible officer for filing of the Election Petition, as I
came with my counsels. I do not have any knowledge of the
rules for filing of the Election Petition. I am not aware of the
role of the Stamp Reporter in filing of the Election Petition. I
also do not know as to how many Stamp Reporters are there
in the Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya. I cannot remember
as to how much time it took me to complete the process of
filing the Election Petition. I cannot recollect the name of the
person before whom I filed the Election Petition. I do not
know whether any endorsement was made by the officer
concerned at the time of filing of the Election Petition, as I
was accompanied by my counsel. I do not recollect receiving
any acknowledgment after filing of the Election Petition. I do
not recollect any defect marked during the filing of the
Election Petition. I do not remember as to how many copies
of the Election Petition were filed during the said process of
filing, as I left this aspect to my counsels. No enquiries were
made from me by the officer concerned during the process of
filing of the Election Petition. I do not remember paying any
fees during the process of filing, as the same was left to my
counsels.”
Page 7 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
4. Similarly, PW-2, Shri Jiedkupar Kynta in his Examination-in-
Chief has mirrored the statements made by the election petitioner in his
affidavit, and in the Cross-Examination and has conceded that he was
unaware of the basic details regarding what happened after he met the
election petitioner and also is ignorant of the Act of Stamp reporting. He
admits that he is a supporter of the election petitioner and also concedes that
he wants to help the election petitioner. The relevant extract is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“I accompanied the election petitioner for filing of the instant
Election Petition, only because I wanted him to win the
election. I do not remember signing any document, as a
witness or the purposes of filing the Election Petition. Around
9 AM I left Sohra, for filing of the Election Petition. I do not
remember exactly the time I came back to Sohra, but it was
already night time. I came Sohra back alone. I reached
Shillong around 1 PM, on the day I left Sohra for filing of the
Election Petition. I did not stop anywhere in my journey to
Shillong. I came to Shillong on a taxi, with some passengers.
I do not remember as to which place I came to in Shillong. I
did not call the election petitioner, after reaching Shillong.
After reaching Shillong, I went to Mr. Titosstar Well Chyne
house at Laban, it took me about half an hour to reach to his
place. I went to his house because I had some pending work
with him. I do not remember exactly the pending work. I met
only Mr. Titosstar Well Chyne, at his house. I do not
remember what happened thereafter. I do not know who is the
Stamp Reporter of the High Court of Meghalaya. I did not
sign at the entrance Register of the High Court. I do not know
as to how many copies were filed along with the Election
Petition. It is correct that I do not know the exact procedure
adopted by the Stamp Reporter in accepting the Election
Petition. I immediately went back to Sohra, after the process
for filing of the Election Petition was over. I did not receivePage 8 of 28
2026:MLHC:297any acknowledgement of filing of the Election Petition. I do
not remember if I reached Sohra in the evening of 11th April,
2023. 1 do not remember as to where I stayed in the
intervening period of 11th and 12th April, 2023. I did not
come to the High Court on 11th April, 2023. I did not seek
any reasons from Mr. Titosstar Well Chyne, as to why the
Election Petition was not presented on 11th April, 2023. I do
not remember as to what happened on 11th April, 2023.
Around 9 AM, on 12th April, 2023 I started my journey from
Sohra to Shillong by taxi. I was dropped at the Bazaar
(lewduh). This aspect was not included in my affidavit
because I wanted to help Mr. Titosstar Well Chyne.”
5. PW-3, Shri Biiosley Malngiang in his Examination-in-Chief
has stated that on 12.04.2023, he along with the election petitioner and PW-
2 left for the Meghalaya High Court and had notarized the petition on the
same day at 2:00 P.M. and that thereafter they had presented the election
petition before the High Court. In the Cross-Examination PW-3, had
deposed that his affidavit itself had been prepared by the lawyers of the
election petitioner and that he did not see the election petitioner signing the
election petition. The deposition is reproduced hereinbelow: –
“The affidavit has been prepared by the lawyers of the
Election Petitioner. I have known Mr. Titosstar Well Chyne
from a very long time. I had never helped the Election
Petitioner in the election campaigning. Yes, it is a fact that I
was appointed as an Election Agent for the Election
Petitioner. My role as an Election agent is to coordinate
meetings, for permissions from authorities to use the sound
systems and to conduct meetings. I have worked with the
election petitioner in 3 elections; one MDC and two MLA
elections. I am a Class X passed. I am currently engaged as a
Public Distribution System Dealer, I am earning around 5Page 9 of 28
2026:MLHC:297Thousand per month. It is correct that I am not proficient in
reading, writing and speaking in English language. I do not
recollect the date when I had signed the affidavit, I had signed
the affidavit in front of the Notary (Bah Kharnabi). I was
informed by the Election petitioner about his intention about
filing the Election Petition before the 11th, but I do not
remember the month or the year. I did not ask for a copy of
the Election Petition. I came along with the Election
Petitioner from Sohra to Shillong. I did not see the Election
Petitioner signing the Election Petition. I am not aware about
the procedures involved in filing the Election Petition. It is
correct that I did not sign the attendance Register, when I
entered the High Court premises. I do not know who is the
Stamp Reporter in the High Court. At first, I did not know
where is the office of the Stamp Reporter in the High Court,
and then I was shown the room. I do not remember the time
when I was shown the room, and since I came with the group
I was asked to wait outside. I am not aware about the fact as
to whether the Stamp Reporter giving any acknowledgement
in filing the Election Petition. I went back to Sohra with Mr.
Titosstar Well Chyne on the 11th.
I deny that I am deposing falsely.”
6. Thereafter, the evidence of Smti Sunita Lyngskor, Stamp
Reporter DW-1 (official witness) was recorded. The official witness in her
Deposition-in-Chief has stated that she was not aware of the requirements of
the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as far as filing of election
petition is concerned, and has volunteered to say that the instant election
petition was not presented to her. In her Cross-Examination, the official
witness as deposed as follows:-
Page 10 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
“I agree that I have discharged my duties according to
the provision of law. I was the Stamp Reporter in April, 2023.
We have two officers as Stamp Reporters for receiving all the
petitions, including the election petition.
Do you acquaint the appended signature which is
illegible along with the date giving the sign and seal?
Yes, I know I am acquainted with the signature. This is
the signature of the Assistant Registrar, Filing Section on the
check slip of the petition.
(The attention of the witness has been drawn to the
appended signature on the check slip of the petition duly
signed on 12.04.2023).
I was in my official room along with this officer, who
put the signature in the check slip and I was informed about
the filing of this election petition, after checking all the
formalities.
I have no information about the defect of the stamp,
while filing the election petition.
I have no knowledge with the allegations of the
respondent No. 1, in his miscellaneous case in the present
Election Petition No. 2 of 2023.
I deny this suggestion that the contents in my
examination portion stating that “I am not aware of the part
of the High Court rules which deals with election petitions. I
am not aware of the requirements of the Representation Act,
1951, as far as filing of election petition is concerned” is false.
I deny this suggestion that I deposed falsely.”
7. The evidence of the Notary, DW-2 Shri Nelson Kharnabi was
recorded, wherein he had deposed that apart from not being clear about the
exact requirements under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and
the High Court Rules in respect of election petition, he could not recall that
Page 11 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
the instant election petition was presented to him for notarization and also
could not recall as to whether election petition documents presented were in
original and also whether the election petitioner affirmed each page as true
copy in front of him. In the Cross-Examination, he has deposed as follows:-
“I had proceeded around 50-60 of swearing
proceedings in a day either of petitions or affidavits. It had
been done in the last 3-5 years or more than that.
It is true that I cannot give the exact time and the exact
number as to the question raised by the Examination in Chief
portion, it is because of time factor that is lapse of time.
I have put a number of my signatures along with the
seal on the election petition. These are upon Oath before me.
(the attention of the witness has been drawn showing the
petition copy of the election petition No. 2 of 2023, relating to
this statement).
1 do agree that I never give my seal and signature in
absence of the deponent. (the witness volunteers to say that I
cannot remember as to whether the election petitioner was
present before me).
I deny the suggestion that I have stated falsely in my
examination in chief particularly, “I am not clear of the exact
requirements under the Representation of People Act, 1951
and the High Court Rules, in respect of the election petition.
I cannot recall that the instant election petition was presented
to me for notarisation. It is correct to say that I cannot recall
the exact number of people who had come for notarisation of
this petition. I do not remember the time when the election
petition was presented to me for notarisation. I do not
remember as to how many copies of the election petition were
presented for notarisation. I do not remember that the election
petition documents presented to me were in original that are
annexed with the election petition. I cannot recall that the
election petitioner affirmed each page as true copy in front of
me.”
I deny the suggestion that I deposed falsely.”
Page 12 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
8. Before proceeding further to see whether the election petition
was presented as per Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act,
1951, it would be relevant to note that as per the mandate of Section 86, the
High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with
the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117. In the instant case,
we are concerned with compliance to the provision of Section 81 read
together with Rule 1 of Chapter VIII-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules as
adopted by the High Court of Meghalaya, which requires that the election
petition must be presented by any candidate at the election or any elector to
the Stamp Reporter of this Court. This Court had notified the Rules of the
High Court of Meghalaya, 2013, which was published on 27.02.2014, and
the note appended to the Rules, clearly states that other Chapters and the
appendix part are under preparation, and to that extent the Gauhati High
Court Rules would continue to be followed till the next part is notified. As
this Court has not framed Rules relating to election petitions, therefore the
Rules of the Gauhati High contained in Chapter VIII-A, will continue to
apply to the High Court of Meghalaya. For the sake of convenience Rule-1
of the Chapter VIII-A of the Rules is reproduced hereinbelow: –
Page 13 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
“1. An election petition under S. 80-A of Representation of
Peoples Act may be presented duly verified in the form
prescribed under Ss. 82 and 83 of the said Act before the
stamp reporter of this Court with a Court fee of Rs. 6.00
affixed thereon, within 45 days from the date of election of the
returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned
candidate at the election and the dates of their election are
different, the latter of those two dates. Every such petition
shall be accompanied by –
(a) as many copies thereof as there are respondents
mentioned in the petition together with one extra copy, all the
copies being fully attested by the petitioner under his own
signature to be a true copy of the petition and as many
envelopes as there are respondents hearing requisite postage
stamp to enable service to be effected by registered post with
acknowledgment due;
(b) as many printed forms of notices, duly filled in, as there
are respondents;
(c) an affidavit in support of the contents of the petition as
prescribed in R. 83(c) of the aforesaid Act where necessary,
and
(d) a challan showing the deposit of Rs.2,000 (Rupees two
thousand) into the State Bank of India, Gauhati Branch in
favour of the Registrar of the Court, as security for the costs
of the petition:
Provided that such deposit in respect of petition to be filed
in the Benches at Kohima, Imphal and Agartala may be made
in the State Bank of Kohima, Imphal and Agartala, as the
case may be, in favour of the Deputy Registrar of the Bench
concerned.
Note (I)- The petition shall be legibly type-written or
printed in the English language, on durable foolscap paper or
other paper similar to it in size and quality, bookwise, on one
side of the paper, with not more than 20 or less than 18 lines,
of about 10 words in each line on each page and with an inner
margin of about an inch and a quarter-wide.
Page 14 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
Note (II) Any petition which is presented out of time and
without any of the above mentioned requisites duly satisfied
shall forthwith be returned by the stamp reporter for refiling.”
9. A perusal of the above Rules stipulates that the election petition
must be presented by the petitioner before the Stamp Reporter with requisite
Court fee of Rs. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions has held
that challenge to an election petition is a serious matter, which requires strict
compliance of the provisions of Section 81(1) of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, which mandates that election petition must be presented
personally by the petitioner to the authorized officer of the High Court, and
that non-compliance of the same would lead to dismissal of the election
petition for improper presentation. It is to be noted therefore, that prevailing
election law requires presentation must be ‘by’ the petitioner himself as the
challenge to election is a serious matter and as such any procedure provided
must be strictly adhered to. As observed earlier due to the rival assertions
with regard to the presentation of the election petition, this Court had deemed
it fit to treat this issue as a preliminary issue to ascertain as to whether the
election petition was presented strictly in accordance with the
Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the High Court Rules.
10. Before analyzing the depositions, the submissions on behalf of
the parties are first looked into. On behalf of the election petitioner Mr. N.
Page 15 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
Jotendra Singh learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Kharshiing,
learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner personally presented the
election petition before the Stamp Reporter on 12.04.2023, and once
accepted a presumption of regularity is attached to such acts. It is also
submitted that the allegations that true copies were not properly attested
lacks basis and that attested true copies were subsequently supplied on
10.07.2023. An election petition he submits cannot be dismissed for minor
attestation defects, where there is no possibility of misleading the
respondents, and that the term copy in Section 81(3) would refer to a
substantially accurate copy and not one that is mechanically identical.
11. It is also submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner that the petition and affidavits were properly verified and sworn
before the Notary public who confirmed attestation in the petitioner’s
presence, which fulfil the requirement under Section 83(1)(c) read with Rule
94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. With regard with the evidence
that had been tendered by the witnesses it is contended that the same supports
the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as, PW-1, (election petitioner) confirms
personal presentation and payment of fees, PW-2 (Jiedkupar Kynta) and
PW-3, (Biiosley Malngiang) corroborate the presentation sequence, and
DW-1 Stamp Reporter (Smti Sunita Lyngskor) received and verified the
petition on 12.04.2023, and DW-2 (Notary) confirmed that all the signatures
Page 16 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
and seals were affixed in his presence. It is further submitted that the petition
has alleged specific instances of suppression of assets and mis-declaration
in Form-26, and there are adequate material facts to support the case of the
election petitioner and on this ground, an election petition cannot be rejected
under Order 7 Rule 11(a).
12. In conclusion, it has been submitted that the petitioner has
demonstrated substantial compliance with all mandatory provisions under
the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and any alleged procedural
inconsistencies are curable irregularities that do not attract dismissal under
Section 86 (1). Further he submits, as the petition has disclosed clear triable
issues rooted in statutory violations and mis-representation, it warrants a full
trial on merits. Dismissal at the threshold it is submitted, would unjustly
stifle the petitioner’s statutory rights under Section 80(a) of the RP Act and
would undermine the integrity of electoral adjudication.
13. Mr. A.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent has
submitted that the election petition was signed and the petition along with
verification and affidavit was notarized on 11.04.2023, and was filed on
12.04.2023. However he submits, the evidence affidavits of all the PWs
indicate that the election petitioner took steps for filing including
notarization/affirmation on 12.04.2023, which is in total contradiction, to the
actual events, inasmuch as, as recorded, the notarization/affirmation
Page 17 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
verification in the election petition was done on 11.04.2023 and filed on
12.04.2023. To try and plug this loophole it is submitted, the election
petitioner preferred Misc. applications to correct the evidence regarding the
basic facts of the dates of filing and presentation, by trying to attribute the
same to typographical and mistakes due to copy pasting. As such, it is
contended that it is admitted by the election petitioner that the filing of
evidence was part of a copy paste exercise. The evidence of PW-1, he
submits, states that he left from Sohra on 12.04.2023 for filing of the election
petition, which shows that the same also does not tally with the record of
notarization, and supports the allegation that the petitioner had not presented
the election petition personally. It is further argued that the absence of the
petitioner is compounded by the fact that his name was not in the attendance
sheet of the High Court on that date. PW-2’s testimony he submits, is also
of no assistance as apart from admitting to being an interested witness has
conceded that he is not even aware of the basic details regarding which place
they come to in Shillong, and in fact contrary to his evidence affidavit, has
deposed that he does not remember as to what happened after he met the
election petitioner when he come to Shillong and has stated that he is
ignorant about the act of Stamp reporting. PW-3 similarly it is submitted was
unaware about the stamp reporting process, as he was asked to wait outside,
Page 18 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
and that he was informed that the election petition would be filed on
11.04.2023.
14. Learned counsel has then submitted that even the evidence of
DW-1 (official witness) does not show that the election petition was
presented as per statute and rule, inasmuch as, it is deposed that the election
petition was not presented to her, which remained uncontroverted in the
Cross-Examination. DW-2, the Notary, it is submitted also did not
corroborate the notarization of election petition in the presence of the
election petitioner. It is further submitted that as the only issue at this stage
pertains to the compliance of the requirements of Section 81(1) by the
election petitioner, and the election petitioner and official witnesses being
the competent witnesses for deposing on the issue, the entire testimony of
the witnesses has however, proven that the election petition was not
presented by the election petitioner personally before the Stamp Reporter.
15. On hearing the arguments of the respective parties this Court is
of the opinion that a finding on the first issue as framed i.e. whether the
election petition satisfies the requirement of Section 81, 82 and 83 of the RP
Act, 1951 read with the High Court Rules, with emphasis on presentation
under Section 81, would suffice to come to a conclusive finding on the
maintainability of the election petition. Therefore, the depositions with
Page 19 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
regard to presentation assumes crucial importance, and as such will be
examined at the outset itself.
16. An analysis of the depositions of the 3(three) PW’s i.e. election
petitioner, supporter and election agent has thrown up many inconsistencies,
first with the dates. The election petition which has been filed before this
Court shows that the same was notarized on 11.04.2023 and was filed on
12.04.2023, and it is seen that in the first page the filing is done by the
advocate. In his deposition, PW-1 (election petitioner) had stated that he had
left from Sohra on 12.04.2023, for filing of election petition which
contradicts the records which show that notarization of the election petition
was done on 11.04.2023. PW-1, has also pleaded ignorance of the basic facts
as to how may copies had been signed before the Notary and also could not
say whether all pages were notarized. Further, apart from conceding that his
name was not in the attendance sheet of the High Court, he deposed that at
around 3:00 P.M. he came to the High Court on the subsequent date for filing
of the election petition. The witness has also deposed that he is not aware of
the role of the Stamp Reporter, nor does he remember the time taken to
complete the process of filing the election petition, nor does he recollect the
name before whom the election petition was filed. PW-2 apart from stating
that he is an interested witness, has deposed that he was not aware of the
basic details regarding the events after he reached Shillong, though in his
Page 20 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
Examination-in-Chief, he had stated that he had accompanied the election
petitioner on 12.04.2023, for notarization of the election petition and that he
had also entered the room of the Stamp Reporter to file the election petition.
In his Cross-Examination however, he has deposed that he does know who
is the Stamp Reporter, nor did he sign at the Entrance Register of the High
Court. PW-3 has deposed that he does not remember the date when he signed
the affidavit before the Notary, nor was he aware about the procedure
involved in filing the election petition. He further deposed that he did not
know who was the Stamp Reporter and that he waited outside and also did
not sign the Attendance Register when he entered the High Court premises.
17. The testimony of the petitioner’s witnesses on a bare
examination reveals that there is a lack of coherence in the narration of
simple facts, which to the mind of this Court would not be possible if the
manner of notarization/affirmation and presentation had been actually
conducted on the dates as deposed. The election petitioner in his examination
could not substantiate that he had personally presented the election petition
before the Stamp Reporter, which is of crucial importance. The DWs i.e. the
Stamp Reporter as also the Notary Public, on examination have also not
tendered any evidence to even suggest that the election petition had been
presented in the required manner. The Stamp Reporter in fact had deposed
that the election petition was not presented before her and the Notary also
Page 21 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
could not say as to whether the election petitioner was present before him,
when the election petition was notarized. In the totality of the testimony
presented before this Court on the question of presentation, after a thorough
examination as seen above, in the considered view of this Court the fact that
the election petition was not presented by the election petitioner personally
is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
18. The consequences of the above noted finding therefore, are fatal
to the survival of the election petition, inasmuch as, it would be constituted
a violation of Section 81(1). In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
a series of judgments as well as the earlier jurisdictional High Court i.e.
Gauhati High Court had held that improper presentation of an election
petition would attract Section 86, and would result in the dismissal of the
election petition itself. This Court in MC (EP) No. 19 of 2023, in the instant
election petition itself, had by order dated 31.10.2023 at Para-10 & 11
thereof, also noted the requirement of strict compliance of Section 81(1). For
the sake of convenience Para 10 & 11 are reproduced hereinbelow: –
“10. It is a settled law that the proper presentation of an
election petition as per Section 81 (1) of the RP Act requires
strict compliance as held in the case of G.V. Sreerama Reddy
vs. Returning Officer (supra), wherein Paras-15 to 19, 24 &
25, reads as follows:-
“15. This Court, on previous occasions, had the
chance to interpret Section 81(1). It must be
noted that the Representation of the People Act,Page 22 of 28
2026:MLHC:2971951 is a special statute, and a self-contained
regime. In K. Venkateswara Rao. v. Bekkam
Narasimha Reddi a question arose whether 45
days’ period provided under Section 81(1) could
be condoned through the application of
the Limitation Act? After examining the relevant
provisions of the Act, this Court held: (AIR p.
877, para 14)“14. … the Limitation Act cannot apply to
proceedings like an election petition
inasmuch as the Representation of the
People Act is a complete and self-
contained code which does not admit of the
introduction of the principles or the
provisions of law contained in the Indian
Limitation Act.”
(emphasis supplied)
This has been reiterated in Hukumdev Narain
Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra wherein this Court
has again read the requirements under Section
81 strictly, while stating that the Act is a self-
contained special statute.
16. While interpreting a special statute, which is
a self- contained code, the court must consider
the intention of the legislature. The reason for
this fidelity towards the legislative intent is that
the statute has been enacted with a specific
purpose which must be measured from
the wording of the statute strictly construed.
17. The preamble of the Representation of the
People Act makes it clear that for the conduct of
elections of the Houses of Parliament or the
legislature of each State, the qualification and
disqualification for membership of those Houses,
the corrupt practice and other offences in
connection with such allegations the Act was
enacted by Parliament.
Page 23 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
18. In spite of existence of adequate provisions
in the Code of Civil Procedure relating to
institution of a suit, the present Act contains
elaborate provisions as to disputes regarding
elections. It not only prescribes how election
petitions are to be presented but it also mandates
what are the materials to be accompanied with
the election petition, details regarding parties,
contents of the same, relief that may be claimed
in the petition. How trials of election petitions are
to be conducted has been specifically provided in
Chapter III of Part VI. In such circumstances,
we are of the view that the provisions have to be
interpreted as mentioned by the legislature.
19. One can discern the reason why the petition
is required to be presented by the petitioner
personally. An election petition is a serious
matter with a variety of consequences. Since
such a petition may lead to the vitiation of a
democratic process, any procedure provided by
an election statute must be read strictly.
Therefore, the legislature has provided that the
petition must be presented “by” the petitioner
himself, so that at the time of presentation, the
High Court may make preliminary verification
which ensure that the petition is neither frivolous
nor vexatious.
24. The challenge to an election is a serious
matter. The object of presenting an election
petition by a candidate or elector is to ensure
genuineness and to curtail vexatious litigations.
If we consider sub-section (1) along with the
other provisions in Chapters II and III, the object
and intent of the legislature is that this provision
i.e. Section 81(1) is to be strictly adhered to and
complied with.
25. In view of the endorsement by the Registrar
(Judicial) on 7-7-2008 that the election petition
Page 24 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
was presented only by an advocate and not by the
election petitioners, we accept the reasoning of
the High Court in dismissing the election
petition. We further hold that as per sub- section
(1) of Section 81, an election petition is to be
presented by any candidate or elector relating to
the election personally to the authorized officer
of the High Court and failure to adhere to such
course would be contrary to the said provision
and in that event the election petition is liable to
be dismissed on the ground of improper
presentation.”
11. Further, with regard to the constitutionality of the High
Court Rules, requiring the election petition to be presented
before the Stamp Reporter, the same has been upheld in the
case of Abdul Jabbar vs. Syeda Anwara Taimur & Ors.
(supra), wherein the erstwhile jurisdictional High Court, had
held that the election petition is said to be filed only when it is
presented to the proper officer for acceptance for record in
the office. The relevant paragraph (at para-14), is quoted
hereunder: –
“14. The next question which arises for
consideration is whether the election petition was
presented in terms of the expression
“presentation” used in Section 81. The word
‘presentation’ has many different significations
in the context and circumstances in which it is
used. The dictionary meaning of ‘presentation’ is
delivering; filing; showing. A mere depositing of
the petition and marking of filing by the clerk is
not a filing. The paper is said to be filed when it
is delivered or deposited to the proper office or
custodian for keeping it on file. A file mark or
endorsement on the petition is merely an
evidence of filing and not actual filing since
filing is delivery to the proper officer or clerk for
his acceptance for record in his office.”
Page 25 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
19. Though the election petitioner had been at pains to advance the
argument that the violations can be overlooked by employing the doctrine of
substantial compliance, the same in the considered of this Court, would be
applicable only in cases of compliance of Section 81(3) which stipulates that
every election petition must be accompanied by a specified number of
copies, which has also been raised by the respondent herein and for defects
of the type under Section 83 of the RP Act, which would be curable under
Order 6 Rules 14 & 15 of the CPC. This point has been explained in the case
of Murarka Radhay Shyam Kumar vs. Roop Singh Rathore reported in
AIR 1964 SC, wherein at Para-8, it has been held as follows: –
“8. We now go to the second point. But before we do so, it may
perhaps be stated that certain defects in the verification of
Election Petition No. 269 of 1962 have been brought to our
notice, as they were brought to the notice of the Election
Tribunal. One of these defects was that though the
verification stated that the averments made in some of the
paragraphs of the petition were true to the personal know
ledge of the petitioner and the averments in some other
paragraphs were verified to be true on the basis of advice and
information received by the petitioner from legal and other
sources, the petitioner did not state in so many words that the
advice and information received was believed by him to be
true. The Election Tribunal took the view that this defect in
verification was a matter which came within cl. (c) of sub-s.
(1) of S. 83 and the defect could be removed in accordance
with the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The
Election Tribunal further held that such a defect did not
attract sub-s. (3) of S. 90 inasmuch as that sub-section does
not refer to non-compliance with the provisions of S. 83 as a
ground for dismissing an election petition. We agree with the
view expressed by the Election Tribunal. We have pointed outPage 26 of 28
2026:MLHC:297that sub-s. (4) of Sec. 90 originally referred to three sections,
namely, Ss. 81, 83 and 117. It said that notwithstanding
anything contained in S. 85 the Tribunal might dismiss an
election petition which did not comply with the provisions of
S. 81, S. 83 or S. 117. Section 90 was amended by Act 27 of
1956. Sub-section (3) then said that the Tribunal shall dismiss
an election petition which does not comply with the provisions
of S. 81, S. 82 or S. 117 notwithstanding that it has not been
dismissed by the Election Commission under S. 85. There was
a further amendment by Act 40 of 1961 and sub-s. (3) of S. 90
as it now stands has already been quoted by us in an earlier
part of this judgment. It seems clear to us that reading the
relevant sections in Part VI of the Act, it is impossible to
accept the contention that a defect in verification which is to
be made in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings as required
by cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of S. 83 is fatal to the maintainability of
the petition.”
20. As such, the law as per Section 81(1) being clear that an election
petition is to be presented by any candidate or elector relating to election
personally to the authorized officer of the High Court, in this case the Stamp
Reporter, the failure to adhere to such course is contrary to that provision
and the Rules framed by the High Court under Chapter VII-A of the Gauhati
High Court Rules. As such, on the first issue framed itself, the election
petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of improper presentation.
21. With regard to the second issue framed, in view of the findings
on the first issue, the same need not be elaborated upon but suffice to observe
that the procedure as prescribed was not followed.
Page 27 of 28
2026:MLHC:297
22. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the election petition stands
dismissed and disposed of. As a footnote, this Court is constrained to observe
that in the manner of filing of election petition, due care should be exercised,
which should not result in the same being dismissed on the ground of a
technicality, as has been occasioned in the present case, without the merits
of the election petition being entered into.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
02.04.2026
“V. Lyndem- PS”
Signature Not Verified Page 28 of 28
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2026.04.02 18:16:16 IST