1. The sole point to be decided in this Misc. Case is as follows:

Whether or not the Election Petition filed by the petitioner before the Stamp Reporter is a valid presentation under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? If not, whether the Election petition filed by the opposite party is not maintainable?

2. In the last General Election of the Legislative Assembly of the tiny State of Nagaland held in the year 1989, the petitioner Shri Melhupra Vero who secured 4870 votes was declared to be elected from 10-Chazouba Assembly Constituency. The opposite party Shri Vamuzo who secured 4759 votes has challenged the election of the petitioner in the Legislative Assembly from that Constituency by filing an Election Petition in this Court under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), being Election Petition No. 5 of 1989, on several grounds including corrupt practice. It is to be noted here that the opposite party Shri Vamuzo had filed the said Election Petition before the Stamp Reporter of this Court on 7.3.1989

3. The petitioner, who is the respondent in the said Election Petition, has made a preliminary point regarding the maintainability of the said Election Petition by filing the present petition. As it is a question of the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the said Election Petition, I have decided to dispose of the matter as a preliminary issue. The learned counsel for both the parties are, therefore, heard in length. Shri B.K Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the election petition filed by the opposite party Shri Vamuzo is not maintainable inasmuch as it was filed before the Stamp-Reporter in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 81 of the Act and Article 329(b) of the Constitution. Shri B.N Sharma, on the other hand, strenuosly submits that the opposite party had filed the Election Petition before the Stamp Reporter as per provisions of the Act and the High Court Rules framed by this Court under Article 225 of the Constitution, and, therefore, the question of violating of Section 81 of the Act and Article 329(b) of the Constitution does not arise at all.

4. Before proceeding to the consideration of the points raised by the learned counsel of both the parties, during the course of their arguments, I consider it necessary to set out at this stage the relevant provisions of law bearing on those points.

5. Section 80 of the Act relates to the Election petitions. It provides that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordence with the provisions of this part. Section 80A deals with the Court having jurisdiction to try the election petitions. Clause 1 of this Section states that the Court having jurisdiction to try an election petition shall be the High Court. Clause 2 of the same section further states that such jurisdiction shall be exercised ordinarily by a Single judge of the High Court and the Chief Justice shall, from time to time assign one or more judges for tha??? purpose.

6. Section 81 deals with the presentation of the election petitions. Cla???se 1 of this Section provides as follows:—

An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section Page: 293(1) of section 100 and section 101 to the High Court by any candidate such election or any ele???tor within forty-five days from, but not earlier than, 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 later of those two date.

7. It is to be noted here that the Act is silent as to the manner of presentation of the Election petition. In other words, the Act does not state as to how, in what manner and through whom the election petition is to be presented to the High Court.

8. Section 82 of the Act deals with the parties to the election petition and Section 83 relates to the co???tents of the election petition. I am not concerned with these sections in the present case.

9. Article 216 of the Constitution covers the constitution of the High Court. It provides that every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the President may from time of time deems it necessary to appoint. Article 225 deals with the jurisdictions of the High Courts to frame rules. Under this article the High Court has framed rules prescribing procedures for presentation of an election petition filed under Section 80(A). Chapter VIII-A of the High Court Rules covers special provisions relating to the procedure in election petition under the Act, 1951. It provides as follows:

“An election petition under S. 80-A of the 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 there on, within 45 days from the date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate of the election and the dates of their election are different, the latter of these two dates: Every such petition shall be accompanied by—

(a) As many copies thereof as there are respondents 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 bearing requisite postage Page: 294stamps to enable service to be effected by registered post with acknowledgements 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 chalan showing the deposit of Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand) into the State Bank of India, Gauhati Branch in favour of the Registrar of this Court, as security for the costs of the petition: ……………………………………………………………………………………….”

10. Article 329 bars the Court to interfere in el???ctoral matters. Clause (b) of this article provides that notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by appropriate-Legislature.

11. In support of his above contention, Shri B.K Das has submitted that in view of the above provisions of Section 81 of the Act, the opposite party Shri Vamuzo had to present the election petition to the Chief Justice and not to the Stamp Reporter. In this connection, my attention has been drawn to an order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in an election petition accepting the petition presented to him dircetly. Undoubtedly, Article 216 of the Constitution of India states that every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President may from time to time, deems it necessary to appoint. Keeping in view the above provisions of law, the learned counsel submits, the election petition must be presented to the Chief Justice or to a Judge of the High Court. It is on that ground that the learned counsel maintains that the election petition presented to the Stamp Reporter is violative of the provisions in Sections 80, 80(A) and 81 of the Act and Article 329(b) of the Constitution and as such not maintainable. The argument seems to have the veneer of plausibility at the first flush but a moment scrutiny of the relevant provisions of law will dislodge it by unmasking spuriousness.

12. As was discussed in the above, the Act is silent regarding the manner of presentation of the election petition. In other words, the Act does not provide the instrumentality through whom the election petition is to be presented to the High Court. Similarly, Article 329(b) also doss not state anything about the procedure for presentation of the election petition to the High Court. It may be because of these reasons that the High Court has framed rules under Article 225 prescribing the procedure for presentation of the election petition under Section 80(A) of the Act. As per Rule 1 of Chapter VIII of the Rules an election petition under Section 80(A) of the Act may be presented duly verified in the forms prescribed under Section 82 and 83 of the Act, before the Stamp Reporter. Shri B.K Das has submitted that this Rule 1 is void inasmuch a??? it cannot override Sections 80, 80(A) and 81 of the Act which are substantive requirements. In support of his above contention that the procedural rule cannot override this substantive requirements (i.e Sections 80.80A and 81), the learned counsel has drawn my attention to a number of decisions made by the Supreme Court and also by a number of High Courts. In fact, he has consumed most of his time in making the above submission. However, I am not inclined to burden my judgment with these citations as I do not propose to dispute the above propositions of law. However, with the utmost respect to the learned counsel I cannot really understand as to how his above contention that Rule 1 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules is violative of Sections 80, 80(A) and 81 of the Act and also Article 329 of the Constitution, is to be appreciated. In my opinion, Rule 1 is not at all in conflict with these substantive provisions of law in any manner. As stated above, the Act does not provide the procedure for presenting the election petition and therefore the High Court has framed Rules under Article 225 prescribing the procedure for preseatation of the election petitions. After all, this Chapter VIII is to aid the substantive requirements (i.e Sections 80, 80(A) and 81). Thus, while apprecia???ing the contention of the learned counsel that substantive provisions of law relating to the election petition (i e. Sections 80, 80(A), 81 and 82 of the Act) should be strictly construed and complied with, I find it difficult to agree with him that the rules framed by the High Court Page: 296prescribing the procedure for presentation of the election petitions which is silent in the Act, is void. Rule 1 of Chapter VIII was, in fact framed by the High Court to aid the substantive requirements (i.e Sections 80.80(A), and 82 of the Act) just to enable the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 80(A) of the Act. In this connection, we may conveniently refer to the observations made by Supreme Court in the case of M. Karunanidhi, reported in (1983) 2 SCC 473 : AIR 1983 S.C 558. In the said case it was observed that there are different sets of rules framed by different High Courts under Artiele 225 of the Constitution regulating the practice and procedure to be observed in all the matters coming before the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 80(A) of the Act. Therefore, I have been persuaded irresistibly to hold that the filing of the election petition to the Stamp Reporter who is one of the important limbs of the High Court which is a legal entity must be deemed to have been presented to the High Court. While appreciating the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of the law relating to election petition should be strictly construe???, I feel that the tendency to be hypertechnical anihilating the real substance of the law, is also to be deprecated, if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of law.

13. In the case of Abdul Jabbar v. Syed Anwara Taimur, reported in Gau. Law Reports 1986 Vol 1, this Court has already decided that the election petition filed before the Stamp Reporter is not violative of Article 329(b) and Sections 80, 80(A) and 81 and that the filing of the election petition to the Stamp Reporter should be deemed to have been presented to the High Court. I have fully endorsed the decision made in the said case and, therefore, the question of referring the matter to the larger Bench as contended by the learned counsel, does not arise.

14. Undoubtedly, at least in one election case, the petitioner directly presented the election petition to the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the latter accepted it without, of course any remark regarding the validity or otherwise of Rule 1 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules framed under Article 225 of the Constitution. However, from this solitory instance alone, I find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel that Page: 297the present election petition is not maintainable inasmuch as it was filed before the Stamp Reporter. Because, if the Hon'ble Chief Justice accepted the election petition on the ground as contended by the learned counsel, I see no acceptable reason why the Hon'ble Chief Justice should not take steps for amendment of the High Court Rules. As he had done so the only plausible conclusion is that while accepting the election petition be had not formed any opinion that the Rules framed by the High Court is void. After all, the Hon'ble Chief Justice does not state that the election petition filed before the Stamp Reporter cannot be deemed to have been presented to the High Court. Shri B.K Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that assuming but not admitting that the High Court Rules is valid and the election petition filed be fore the Stamp Reporter is deemed to have been presented to the High Court, the election petition filed by the respondents is li able to be dismissed in limine as the election petition was not accompanied with the challan showing deposit Rs. 2,000/- and also as the election petition was not filed by the respondent personally before the Stamp Reporter. However, on my anxious and careful scrutiny of the petition filed by the petitioner, it is seen that these points were never raised in the petition. Again, this is a matter to be decided after consideration of the evidence adduced by both the parties. Therefore, I am not inclined to make any decision on this point.

15. In view of my above decision that the election petition filed before the Stamp Reporter should be deemed to have been presented to the High Court under Section 80(A) of the Act, I bold that the election petition filed by the respondent Vamuzo is maintainable. This issue is, therefore, decided accordingly.