Page 1 of 28

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 2026:MLHC:297

Page 2 of 28

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 2026:MLHC:297

Page 3 of 28

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, 2026:MLHC:297

Page 4 of 28

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.

2026:MLHC:297

Page 5 of 28

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 11

th

and 12

th

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. 2026:MLHC:297

Page 6 of 28

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 Court 2026:MLHC:297

Page 7 of 28

on 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.”

2026:MLHC:297

Page 8 of 28

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 receive 2026:MLHC:297

Page 9 of 28

any 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 5 2026:MLHC:297

Page 10 of 28

Thousand 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:-

2026:MLHC:297

Page 11 of 28

“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 2026:MLHC:297

Page 12 of 28

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.” 2026:MLHC:297

Page 13 of 28

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: - 2026:MLHC:297

Page 14 of 28

“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. 2026:MLHC:297

Page 15 of 28

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. 2026:MLHC:297

Page 16 of 28

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 2026:MLHC:297

Page 17 of 28

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 2026:MLHC:297

Page 18 of 28

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, 2026:MLHC:297

Page 19 of 28

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 2026:MLHC:297

Page 20 of 28

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 2026:MLHC:297

Page 21 of 28

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 2026:MLHC:297

Page 22 of 28

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, 2026:MLHC:297

Page 23 of 28

1951 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. 2026:MLHC:297

Page 24 of 28

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 2026:MLHC:297

Page 25 of 28

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.”

2026:MLHC:297

Page 26 of 28

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 out 2026:MLHC:297

Page 27 of 28

that 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. 2026:MLHC:297

Page 28 of 28

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” 2026:MLHC:297