It is to be numbered herein that on companying to know of the Civil Misc.
Respondent No.1 herein moved an application being Civil Miscellaneous Election Case No.3/2000 companytending that the companyies of the affidavits filed in support of the companyrupt practices alleged in the election petition and supplied to him, did number companytain due verification and attestation by the Oath Commissioner or by the Prescribed Authority, hence there was a violation of the mandatory requirement of Sections 81 3 and 83 1 of the Act and, therefore, the election petition in question was liable to be dismissed.
One of the grounds of attack in the said petition was that respondent No.1 indulged in companyrupt practice as companytemplated in Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act among other grounds, hence, he had prayed that the declaration made in favour of respondent No.1 be set aside and he be declared as the elected candidate from the said Constituency.
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. The appellant before us had preferred Election Petition No.1/2000 before the Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court challenging the declaration of the results made in favour of respondent No.1 herein as the elected candidate in the elections held for the 48 Churachandpur Assembly Constituency in the 7th Manipur Legislative Assembly Election.
