Manipur High Court
Md. Nasirruddin Khan vs B.L. Shanker And Ors Reported In on 16 March, 2026
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Lucy Digitally
by Lucy
signed
Item Nos. 7-9
Gurum Gurumayum
Date: IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
2026.03.17
ayum 13:41:32 +05'30' AT IMPHAL
El. Pet. No. 8 of 2022
Md. Nasirruddin Khan ...Petitioner/s
Vrs.
Lourembam Rameshwor Meetei & 4 Ors ...Respondent/s
With
MC(EL.Pet.) No. 52 of 2022
El. Recr. Pet. No. 10 of 2022
-B E F O R E-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
16.03.2026
[1] Mr. N. Zequeson, learned counsel appeared for the
respondent no. 1.
[2] By an order dated 31.08.2022 passed by this Court in
El. Pet. No. 8 of 2022, the Election Petition has been proceeded ex-
parte against respondent nos. 2 to 5.
[3] During the pendency of the Election Petition, an
application registered as MC(El. Pet) No. 18 of 2025 was filed by
the learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner with a
prayer for allowing their determination as counsel for the Election
Petitioner. By an order dated 18.12.2025 the said application was
allowed and the counsel appearing for the election petitioner
determined themselves from representing the Election Petitioner.
[4] It has been submitted by Mr. N. Zequeson that
consequent upon allowing the determination of the counsel
Page 1
representing the Election petitioner, the Election Petitioner remain
un-represented in all the proceedings subsequent to allowing the
determination of the counsels representing the election petitioner.
[5] Today also when these matters are taken up, the
election petitioner remain un-represented by anybody. In view of
the above, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 in the said
Election Petition prays for dismissing the Election Petition for non-
prosecution.
[6] I have heard the submission advanced by the learned
counsel representing the respondent no. 1 in Election Petition and
the petitioner in the connected Election Recrimination Petition No.
10 of 2022.
[7] On perusal of the earlier proceeding in connection
with the said Election Petition as recorded in the order sheet, it is
ascertained that the election petitioner has been absent in all the
subsequent proceeding after allowing of the determination of the
counsel representing the election petitioner. 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
Page 2
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 explanation 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.
Page 3
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 petitioner 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
Page 4
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…
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.”
[8] 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.
Page 5
[9] In view of the failure on the part of the Election
Petitioner to prosecute the 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
Supreme Court Cases 631 (Supra), this court is of the
considered view that there is force and substance in the submission
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.
1 in the Election Petition. Accordingly, the Election Petition is
hereby dismissed for non-prosecution.
[10] Mr. N. Zequeson, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in the Election Recrimination Petition No. 10 of 2022
submitted that as the connected Election Petition No. 8 of 2022 has
been dismissed for non-prosecution, the learned counsel submitted
that he did not want to press the said Election Recrimination
Petition as well connected the MC(El. Pet.) No. 52 of 2022.
[11] In view of the submission made by the learned
counsel, the El. Recr. Pet. No. 10 of 2022 and MC(El. Pet.) No. 52
of 2022 are hereby dismissed as not pressed.
JUDGE
Lucy
Page 6