One Shri Abul Khayer who had also companytested the election was number impleaded as respondent instead one Abdul Khyer was impleaded as Respondent number11.
It was also prayed that the appellant may be declared as duly elected candidate from No.
Hence, election of Respondent No.1 was liable to be declared void.
The appellant who secured the next highest number of votes, challenged the election of Respondent No.1 by filing an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 on the ground that large scale rigging and booth capturing had taken place at the instance of Respondent No.1 who adopted and resorted to companyrupt practices in the election.
Technically there may be difference but by way of example some may spell Banerjee as Banerji or Saksena as Saxena or the like.
The Respondent No.1 Mani Kumar Subba on receipt of the numberice, moved an application under Section 86 of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 hereinafter to be referred as the Act praying for dismissal of the election petition at the threshold on three grounds, firstly that the election petition was filed beyond a period of 45 days which is the prescribed period of limitation for filing an election petition under Section 81 1 of the Act.
Notice was issued to the respondents on the election petition.
Therefore, the companytention was that it was number the true companyy of the affidavit accompanying with the election petition In support of the above companytention, learned companynsel for Respondent No.1 placed reliance upon decisions of this Court reported in 1996 5 S.C.C. 181 Dr. Shipra Smt.
Respondents BRIJESH KUMAR, J. The appellant Ram Prasad Sarma and Respondent No.1 Mani Kumar Subba, amongst others companytested election, for No.
The next ground was that where the election petitioner prays for a declaration in his favour or in favour of any other candidate for having been duly elected from the companystituency all the companytesting candidates have to be impleaded as respondents in the election petition.
The High Court negatived the plea raised on behalf of the Respondent No.1 for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of limitation and number impleadment of Abul Khayer as a respondent in the election petition.
9 Tezpur Constituency.
Respondent No.1 Mani Kumar Subba was declared elected on 7.10.1999 from the aforesaid companystituency.
J U D G M E N T W I T H L.P. CC 8664 OF 2001 Mani Kumar Subba Petitioner Versus Ram Prasad Sarma Ors.
9 Tezpur Parliamentary Constituency, Assam in the elections held in the year 1999.
