Page No.# 1/9 GAHC040003212025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/65/2025 Kumar Waii Son of Late Sardo Waii, resident of Village Waii, Po Khenewa, PS Seppa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh 790102 VERSUS Doba Lamnio and Anr Son of Late Bangro Lamnio, resident of Village Lamnio, PO and PS Khenewa, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh 790102. 2:The Returning Officer Age: 0 Occupation : for election to State Legislative Assembly for 8-Bameng (ST) Assembly Constituency Arunachal Pradesh PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 79010 Advocate for the Petitioner : Rage Koyu, Advocate for the Respondent : Tsering Gyatso, Linked Case : Election Pet./5/2024 Doba Lamnio Age: 43 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Bangro Lamnio resident of Village Lamnio Page No.# 2/9 PO and PS Khenewa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 790102. VERSUS Kumar Waii and Anr Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Sardo Waii resident of Village Waii Po Khenewa PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 790102 2:The Returning Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:for election to State Legislative Assembly for 8-Bameng (ST) Assembly Constituency Arunachal Pradesh PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 790102 ------------ Advocate for : Adam Tatak Advocate for : Ajin Apang Sr. Advocate appearing for Kumar Waii and Anr: Advocate , appearing for 2, respectively. BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 19-09-2025 Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the applicant/returned candidate. Also heard Mr. A. Tatak, learned counsel for the opposite party/election petitioner. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 86 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (here-in-after referred as ‘the Act of 1951’), Page No.# 3/9 by the applicant/returned candidate praying for dismissal of the election petition claiming that the signatures appearing in the election petition and the copy of the election petition served to the applicant are not the signature of the election petitioner and same are put by a different person and hence, the election petition is not maintainable as being filed in total disregard of the mandatory provision of Section 81 of the Act of 1951, which requires that the election petition shall be presented by the candidate at the time of filing the election petition and a copy of the same shall be served to the respondent. 3. It is submitted by Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel that on 04.01.2025, the applicant/the returned candidate could manage to meet his engaged counsel physically at their chamber at Guwahati for discussing the present status of the case and future course of action in his case. In course of discussion, the applicant minutely read the allegations made in the election petition and it was during this discussion, the applicant for the first time discovered that the signatures appearing on the body of the election petition is not the signatures of the election petitioner. It is further stated that he personally knows the signature of the election petitioner, as they were working together for a considerable period and hence, the signatures which are available in the election petition are the signature of any other person put on behalf of the election petitioner. 4. Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the signatures of the election petitioner appearing in the relevant Form 26 affidavit in his nomination paper, both annexed with the election petition are completely different and distinct from the signatures appearing in the body of the election petition. Therefore, it is quite evident that the signatures of the election Page No.# 4/9 petitioner appearing in the election petition are not the signatures of the election petitioner and in view of this also, for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 80, 81 and 83 of the Act of 1951, the election petition is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Mazumdar, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the applicant/ returned candidate was associated with the election petitioner for a long period of time and hence, he knows the manner and style of signature and handwriting of the election petitioner and as such, the present interlocutory application is filed under Section 86 of the Act of 1951, praying for dismissal of the election petition, on the point of maintainability. 5. Mr. Mazumdar, the learned Senior Counsel accordingly submitted that the specimen signature of the election petitioner may be sent for comparison before the handwriting expert of the FSL. 6. Mr. T. Tatak, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party/election petitioner submitted in this regard that he is the maker of the signatures and he himself put the signatures in the election petition as well as the copies of the election petition, which were served to the applicant/returned candidate. At the time of filing the election petition, the election petitioner put his signatures before the Oath Commissioner by physically appearing before him. Mr. Tatak, the learned counsel further submitted that as per Section 80A of the Act of 1951, within a period of limitation along with the appropriate Court Fees, the election petition has to be presented with his own signatures and as such, there cannot be any question of someone else putting the signatures on behalf of the election petitioner in the election petition. He further submitted that the signatures appearing in the relevant Form 26 affidavit and in the nomination paper, both annexed to the election petition, the short signatures of the election Page No.# 5/9 petitioner and the signatures appearing on the body of the election petition and the annexures are the long signatures of the deponent. 7. He further submitted that the present election petitioner had physically appeared before the Hon’ble High Court at the time of presenting this election petition and he fulfilled all the requirements as provided under Section 81 of the Act of 1951 and it is only after being satisfied about such compliance, the Registry of the Hon’ble High Court put the election petition before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for assigning a Trial Judge for trial of the election petition. He further submitted that the statements made in the present interlocutory application are not only vexatious but also an attempt to abuse the process of law to delay the trial of the election petition. He further submitted that a similar nature of interlocutory application, which was registered as I.A.(Civil) No.215(AP)/2024, had already been filed by the present applicant/returned candidate, which has already been decided by this Court on 13.06.2025. Apart from the issue raised on the merits of the case, Mr. Tatak, the learned counsel for the opposite party/election petitioner also raised the ground that under Section 87 of the Act of 1951, it is specifically provided that procedure for trial of election petition should be as per the Code of Civil Procedure. Part VI of the Act of 1951, commencing from Section 79 to 122, deal with the dispute regarding the election petition. Few of the sections mentioned in Part VI are procedural in nature and other sections are substantive in nature. Sections 80, 80A, 81, 82 and 87 are the procedural sections, whereas Sections 86, 98, 99 etc. are substantive in nature. He further stated that this interlocutory application has been filed under Section 86 read with Section 81 of the Act of 1951, which provides the substantive power of the High Court as a trial court of the election petition to dismiss an election petition for violation of Section 81, 82 Page No.# 6/9 and 117 of the Act of 1951 and the substantive power of the High Court under Section 86 can be released only through appropriate applications filed under the Code of Civil Procedure. But here in the instant case, no appropriate application has been filed before this Court under the Code of Civil Procedure for invocation of the substantive power of the High Court as a trial court under Section 86 of the Act of 1951. 8. Mr. Tatak, the learned counsel accordingly submitted that the present interlocutory application filed by the applicant/returned candidate is not at all maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed with cost. 9. Hearing the submission made by the learned counsel for both the sides, I have also perused the case record of Election Petition No.5 (AP)/2024, filed before this Court. 10. Vide the instant interlocutory application, it is claimed by the applicant/returned candidate that the signatures which are available in the election petition as well as copy served to the applicant/returned candidate are not the signatures of the election petitioner and those were put by some other person. The issue basically raised is that the signatures available in the Form 26 affidavit, filed along with the nomination paper is completely different with the signatures available in the election petition and accordingly, by the present interlocutory application, it is submitted that the election petition is not maintainable for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 80, 81 and 83 of the Act of 1951. 11. During the course of deliberation, it is also submitted by Mr. D. Mazumdar, Page No.# 7/9 learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/ returned candidate that if the election petitioner claims that the signatures are his own signatures, in that case, the signatures of the election petitioner may also be sent to the handwriting expert of the FSL for examination. 12. On the other hand, it is the claim of the election petitioner that he physically appeared before the Oath Commissioner of the Hon’ble High Court and put his signatures in the affidavit and also put his signature on each and every page of the election petition. Further, it is the contention of the election petitioner that he put his short signatures while submitting his nomination paper along with the Form 26 affidavit. Accordingly, there may be some variation of the short signatures with the long signatures of the election petitioner. 13. From the record, it is seen that while disposing the I.A.(Civil) No.215(AP)/2024, wherein also the issue of maintainability was raised by the returned candidate, decided with an opinion that the election petition is maintainable. In the said interlocutory application also, the issue was raised regarding his physical presence before the High Court at the time of presenting the election petition and it was alleged that the election petitioner has not personally presented the election petition at the time of filing the same, which is a requirement under Section 81 of the Act of 1951. 14. But at the time of discussion of the case and after hearing the parties, it was held that there was sufficient compliance of all the provisions and there was no statement or document to show that the election petitioner had not presented the election petition, appearing personally before the High Court or before the Oath Commissioner. At the time of filing the said interlocutory Page No.# 8/9 application, the plea was not raised by the returned candidate that the signatures which are available in the election petition are not the signatures of the election petitioner and the issue was decided accordingly that the election petitioner personally appeared and presented the election petition. 15. It is the only contention of the applicant/returned candidate that he personally know the signature of the election petitioner and the manner and style he put his signature, as he was associated with him for a considerable period. But to substantiate the fact that the signatures which are available in the election petition are not the signatures of the election petitioner, he did not produce any relevant document bearing the signature of the present petitioner to compare with or to hold an opinion that the signatures are not the signatures of the election petitioner. Further, the claim of the applicant/returned candidate is only on the basis of his verbal statement of the returned candidate, without any short of documentary evidence to substantiate his claim that the signatures put by the election petitioner in the election petition are not his signatures. More so, it is the plea of the opposite party/election petitioner that he put his short signatures in the Form 26 affidavit at the time of filing his nomination and he put his long signatures in all the documents as well as copies of the election petition, which were presented before this Court. It is very obvious that the signatures may be different of any person with his long and short signatures but unless there is any document to establish the fact that the signatures available in the election petition are not the signatures of the election petitioner, it cannot be held that the petitioner did not put his signatures in the election petition, as claimed by the applicant/returned candidate. More so, there is not dispute that the election petitioner appeared before the Oath Commissioner, while swearing the affidavit and he put his signatures accordingly at the time of presenting the Page No.# 9/9 election petition and there is no statement or document to prove that the election petitioner was not physically/personally present before the officer of the High Court at the time of presenting the election petition. 16. In view of the discussion made above and considering all aspects of the case including the observation made in I.A.(Civil) No.215(AP)/2024, this Court is of the opinion that the present interlocutory application is not maintainable and there is no need to send the specimen signature of the election petitioner to the FSL for examination by the handwriting expert. 17. The interlocutory application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant