Shillong: The nomination papers of Khun Hynniewtrep National Awakening Movement’s (KHNAM) THS Boney and CPI nominee Justice Kharbasanti were withheld by the Election Commission.
Tuesday was the day of scrutiny. THS Boney papers were not accepted following the objections raised by the Pyndapborne Saiborne faction of the KHNAM. The Returning Officer of the Shillong parliamentary seat, Abhishek Bhagotia, told newsmen soon after completing the process that “THS Boney has filed his papers as a KHNAM nominee. However, president of the KHNAM, Pyndapbor Saiborne, lodged a formal objection requesting me not to accept form A and B.” The two forms relates to attestation of a party nominee and a party office bearer.
On Justice Khabasanti’s nomination papers, his papers are kept in abeyance after receiving an objection from a bank for not disclosing his loans and unpaid interest, informed Bhagotia.
On being asked on the fate of these two aspirants, the Returning Officer said, “We have served notice based on the objections; they will have to give their submissions before we come out with any observation”. The date for THS Boney to make his submissions is March 27 and for Justice Kharbasanti, it is March 28.
Stating that the proceedings will immediately start after getter the submissions from the two nominees, the Returning Officer also made it clear that there is no question of deferring the polls to the Shillong Parliamentary seat. “The elections are to be held in a time bound manner as fixed by the Election Commission of India. If any party is aggrieved of any decision by the Returning Officer, they can approach the court for redressal,” stated Bhagotia.
Adelberth Nongrum, the lone MLA and THS Bonny refused to comment soon after they came out of the Returning Officer’s chamber. “Everything will be fine “stated Nongrum, the man who also claims to be the president of the KHNAM.
Notwistanding the pending observation of the Returning Officer, the latest development has come as a shot in the arm for the Pyndapbor Saiborne faction. Last week, the Meghalaya Hight Court in its verdict stated that “the position of the present petitioner as it exists should be maintained”.
Also read: Meghalaya news