KAMENG DOLO vs ATUM WELLY. Supreme Court, 09-05-2017
| Judge | HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR |
| Parties | KAMENG DOLOATUM WELLY |
| Date | 09 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No.-002991-002991 / 2017 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2991 OF 2017
Kameng Dolo ... Appellant
Versus
Atum Welly ... Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
The instant appeal has been preferred under Section
116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for
brevity, “the Act”) assailing against judgment and order
dated 08.02.2017 whereby the High Court of Gauhati had
allowed the Election Petition 2 of 2014 filed by the
respondent herein, and declared the election of the
appellant herein, from No.12 Pakke-Kessang (ST) Legislative
Assembly Constituency (hereinafter referred to as
Digitally signed by
CHETAN KUMAR
Date: 2018.04.07
12:50:11 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
2
‘constituency’), as void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act.
2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present
appeal are that the appellant and the respondent filed their
respective nomination papers from the earlier mentioned
constituency. No other candidate had filed nomination
papers in respect of the said constituency. Respondent’s
younger brother, Sri Utung Welly was the election agent of
the respondent, who was also a registered voter of the
constituency. Nomination papers of both the candidates
were taken up for scrutiny on 24.03.2014 in the office of the
Returning Officer at Seppa where wife and election agent of
the respondent were present; and the nomination papers of
both the candidates were found to be in order. It is stated
that the respondent left Seppa for campaigning in the
morning on 25.03.2014 at Rilloh village and on 26.03.2015
he came back to Itanagar and remained there from
26.03.2014 to 30.03.2014. In the evening of 26.03.2014,
the respondent learnt about the withdrawal of his
candidature telephonically through his supporters and
relations and on the same day, the website of State Election
3
Commission displayed withdrawal of candidature by the
respondent from the constituency and consequential
election of the appellant from the said constituency
unopposed. Thereafter, the respondent lodged complaint
with the Seppa Police Station which was registered as FIR
No. 19/2014 under Sections 468 and 469 IPC.
3. As the factual score further depicts, the respondent
filed Election Petition before the High Court challenging the
legality and validity of the appellant’s election, specifically
pleading that the provisions of Section 37 of the Act had not
been complied with inasmuch as Form V, the prescribed
format for withdrawal of candidature, had neither been
delivered by the respondent nor his proposer nor his
election agent. It was further pleaded that acceptance of
respondent’s withdrawal had materially affected the election
and prayed for declaration for setting aside the election.
4. The appellant filed his written statement contending,
inter alia, that the respondent was himself instrumental in
withdrawing the candidature; that Returning Officer had
found respondent’s signature in the withdrawal Form to be
To continue reading
Request your trial