Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Chaluvadi Hanumayamma vs Sandrapati Jainabee And Ors. on 26 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(5)ALT741, 2003 A I H C 3154, (2003) 5 ANDH LT 741
ORDER V. Eswaraiah, J.
1 This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in I.A. No. 946/2001 in E.O.P. No. 3/2001 dated 28-3-2002 on the file of the Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to dismiss the Election Petition No. 32001 for non-compliance of Rule 3 (2) of A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunal in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1995').
2. The 1st respondent herein filed the said Election Petition against the Election Officer, District Election Authority, Additional District Election Authority, Election Commission, petitioner herein and four others who contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of Vinukonda Gram Panchayat, Guntur District. The petitioner herein is the 5th respondent in the Election Petition and he is the Returned Candidate who has been declared elected as Sarpanch of Vinukonda Gram Panchayat.
3. It is stated in the Election Petition that the Vinukonda Gram Panchayat is reserved for general woman in the elections held on 20-8-2001. It is stated that after polling was over, the counting of votes was not done by the Election Officer properly and fairly by following the procedure under law. The Election Officer committed several irregularities, improprieties and illegalities. He violated the counting procedure very openly. He acted in a clear partisan and biased manner in favour of the petitioner herein and against the 1st respondent. The petitioner herein has been declared elected as Sarpanch on the basis of incorrect and false counting with a majority of 224 votes. The petitioner herein secured 9353 votes while the 1st respondent (Election Petitioner) secured 9,129 votes. The other respondent Nos. 6 to 9 secured 164, 423, 132 and 41 votes respectively, 662 Votes were declared as invalid. The total number of votes polled were 19,904. It is further submitted that after the polling was completed, the Election Officer ought to have intimated to the 1st respondent in advance, the place and time of counting and the number of counting tables arranged for the purpose as per rules. He did not do so deliberately and kept the petitioner in darkness in that regard. He arranged in all 30 counting tables in two rows opposite to each other in 'U' fashion, while there was a block at 'U' shape curve which prevents the candidates and their election agents to move freely from one side to the other so as to observe counting position in both the sides. Further, one has to come out of the counting room and go inside again through different door from one side of 15 tables to the other side of 15 tables. It became impossible to observe and supervise the counting tables. The Election Officer, in the first instance, announced that there would be 10 counting tables and later on they were increased to 20 tables and finally to 30 tables. He did it at his will and pleasure. Another illegal act committed by the Election Officer was that he opened the ballot boxes in the absence of the Election Petitioner, her election agent and counting agent. He also got counting carried out even before the Election Petitioner and counting agents arrived at their respective tables. The ballot papers were sorted out candidate-wise without any opportunity being given to the counting agents for scrutiny for the purpose of their validity or otherwise. Arbitrariness ruled to the roost in declaring the ballot papers valid or invalid, rejected or doubtful votes ought to have been kept separately and subjected to further scrutiny and it was also not done in spite of repeated requests made by the election petitioner. The counting was carried on in a hurried manner so as not to allow the Election Petitioner or her counting agent to closely scrutinize the ballot papers. There was a total pell-mell in the counting hall. Immediately after counting was over, the Election Officer informed that she won the election with a margin of 325 votes and he said that he would declare the same shortly. But after one hour, the Election Officer made an illegal declaration that the petitioner herein got elected with a majority of 224 votes. The Election Petitioner-1st respondent protested against the illegal declaration and demanded for recounting of all the votes including 662 invalid votes as so-called majority was very much slender that is nearly 1/3rd of the invalid votes. The Election Officer deliberately and adamantly refused to concede to the most reasonable request made by the 1st respondent both orally and through written representation. Thousands of people made big agitation demanding for recount of votes. He refused to recount the invalid votes by further scrutinizing the same as per the rules. All these illegal acts were committed as the Election Officer was totally partisan in favour of the petitioner herein. There was no scope at all for the petitioner herein to get more votes than the 1st respondent while she got full scope to win the election if counting had taken place fairly, properly and strictly observing the procedure under the law. The 1st respondent ought to have been declared as the Sarpanch. The declaration of the petitioner herein declaring as Sarpanch of Vinukonda Gram Panchayat is illegal and void. It is stated that the cause of action arose when the 1st respondent contested for the post of Sarpanch Vinukonda Gram Panchayat held on 20-8-2001 and when the Election Officer violated the procedure of counting of the votes of Sarpanch under law and when he made the illegal and void declaration in favour of the petitioner herein in a partisan manner on 20-8-2001. Accordingly, the 1st respondent prayed to pass an order declaring that the 1st respondent herein had won the Sarpanch of Vinukonda Gram Panchayat in the election held on 20-8-2001 by setting aside the declaration of the Election Officer stating that the petitioner herein had won the election as illegal and void. In the verification, it is stated that the above facts are true to the best of her knowledge and information and belief. In the list of the documents, a Photostat copy of the fax message sent by the 1st respondent on 22-8-2001 to the authorities demanding recount of the Sarpanch votes and another Photostat copy of the CPI Secretary to the Election Authorities demanding for recount of Sarpanch votes were only filed.
4. Admittedly, the counting of the votes was done on 20-8-2001 and a copy of the written representation said to have been filed for recount of the votes on 22-8-2001 after the counting was over is filed in the list of documents. That is all the contents of the Election Petition.
5. The petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 946/ 2001 to dismiss the Election Petition on the ground that the Election Petitioner miserably failed to mention the material facts, which are to be stated as per Rule 3 (2) of Rules, 1995. The Election Petition is vague in terms and bereft of any material particulars. The allegations made in the Election Petition are vague and bald and the election petitioner did not mention any material facts, which shows that the Election Officer did not follow the procedure prescribed under law. It is stated that the Election Petition filed by the 1st respondent is not sustainable for want of compliance with Rule 3 (1) (2) of the Rules, 1995. The Election Petition is nothing but abuse of Election Tribunal and harassment of the petitioner. The 1st respondent has based her petition for violation of the counting procedure enunciated under the rules but she did not specifically mention the relevant rules and the so-called violations. The 1st respondent did not state the material particulars as to the non-intimation of the place and timing of the counting in advance. It is also not stated as to how they came to the place of counting and when they were intimated about the place and time of the counting of votes. It is also not stated when the 1st respondent, her election agent and counting agent arrived at their respective tables of counting hall. It is stated that the allegation that the 1st respondent made a request for recounting of both the oral and writing representation is denied and stated that there is no such oral or written representation filed for recount of votes. No copy of the said representation has been filed along with the Election Petition. The so-called telegram for recount of votes is made after three days of the counting was over. The Election Petition does not disclose any material facts as required and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed as it does not conform to the Rule 3 of Rules, 1995.
6. A counter has been filed in the said I.A. by the 1st respondent/Election Petitioner stating that it is incorrect to state that the Rule 3 (2) of Rules, 1995 was not complied with by the Election Petitioner in filing the main Election Petition. It is also incorrect to state that no material facts were mentioned in the main Election Petition. It is also incorrect to state that the Election Officer had violated the procedure in respect of the counting of votes. It is also incorrect to contend that the Election Petition should contain each and every rule, which was violated by the Election Officer. It is incorrect to contend that there are no material facts in the main Election Petition, which are necessary to decide whether there was any violation of the counting procedure. It is stated that the Court has to decide the Election Petition on merits the result of the main petition based on the material facts mentioned in the petition and the oral evidence and other evidence adduced in support of the material facts. The petition cannot be dismissed at the stage even before adducing the evidence.
7. The elections are conducted under the A.P. Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1994'). There is no allegation anything about the illegality of the polling. The allegations are made only with regard to the counting irregularities. Under Rule 32 of Rules, 1994, the counting of votes, which commence on the day and, at the place and hour appointed with regard to the counting of votes. The Election Officer shall, at least three days before the date, or the first of the dates, fixed for the poll, appoint the place or places where the counting of votes will be done and the date and time at which the counting will commence and shall give notice of the same in writing to each candidate or his election agent. The votes shall be counted by or under the supervision of the Election Officer. The Election Officer shall appoint such number of counting assistants as may be necessary to assist him in counting of votes. Each candidate, election agent of each candidate, and one representative of each candidate authorized in writing by the candidate shall have a right to be present at the time of counting. Under Rule 32(2)(a), the Election Officer shall open, or cause to be opened, simultaneously the ballot boxes used at more than one polling station and shall have the total number of ballot papers found in such boxes counted and recorded in Part II of Paper Account (Form 16). Before any ballot box is opened for counting of votes, the counting agents present thereat shall be allowed to inspect the paper seal or such other seal as might have been affixed thereon and to satisfy themselves that the ballot box is intact.
8. Rule 34 of Rules, 1994 deals with regard to the counting and rejection of invalid and valid ballot papers. Under Rule 34 (7) of Rules, 1994 after counting of all ballot papers contained in all the ballot boxes have been completed, the Election Officer shall make the entries in a result sheet in Form 17 and announce the particulars. Under Rule 35, after announcement has been made in Sub-rule (7) of Rule 34, a candidate or, in his absence, his election agent or any of his counting agents may apply in writing to the Election Officer for recounting of the votes either wholly or in part stating the grounds on which, he demands such recount. On such an application being made, the Election Officer shall decide the matter and may allow the application in whole or in part or may reject it wholly if it appear to him to be frivolous or unreasonable. The decision of the Election Officer under Rule 35 (2) shall be in writing and contain reasons thereof. No disturbance took place at the time of the counting as is evident from the Election Petition and the allegations are only that there are material irregularities and non-observance of certain rules in the counting of votes.
9. Under Rule 3 (1) of Rules, 1995, the Election Petition shall be presented within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result. Under Rule 3 (1)(ii), the Election Petition shall contain a statement in concise form, the material facts on which the petitioners rely and the particulars of any corrupt practices which he alleges and shall, wherever necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively. It shall be signed by the Election Petitioner and verify in the manner prescribed for the verification of the pleadings in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Under Rule 7 (1), every Election Petition shall be enquired into by the Election Tribunal, as early as possible, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the trial of suits. Rule 12 (d) of Rules, 1995 reads as follows:
Rule 12. If in the opinion to (of) the Election Tribunal,
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a Returned Candidate has been materially affected.
(i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice, committed in the interest of the Returned Candidate by an Agent other than his election agent, with the connivance of the Returned Candidate, or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote, or the reception of any vote which is void,
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, or any Rules or Orders made under the Act (A) The Election Tribunal shall declare the election of the Returned Candidate to be void.
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that the Election Petition filed by the 1st respondent herein is bereft of any material particulars and the Election Petition does not contain a statement in concise form and, therefore, the same is not in conformity with Rule 3 (i)(ii) of Rules, 1995. It is further stated that there is nothing on record to show for the Election Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the result of the election of the Returned Candidate has been materially affected by reason of improper reception or rejection of any vote or receipt of any vote which is void and also the Election Petition is bereft of any material particulars of the so-called non-compliance of the provisions of the Act, or the Rules or Orders made thereunder. Thus, it is submitted that a reading of the Election Petition in its entirety does not disclose that the result of the Returned Candidate -petitioner herein has been materially affected by any improper rejection of any valid votes or reception of any valid votes which is void or by any non-compliance of the provisions of the Act, or the Rules, or the Orders made thereunder. It is not stated how the result of the petitioner herein is materially affected by the so-called averments made in the Election Petition. The Election Petition is frivolous, vague and filed with an intention to harass the petitioner alone. The election petitioner cannot develop the material facts made in the Election Petition and the said material facts are not sufficient to hold that the result of the election of the petitioner has been materially affected by reason of the so-called non-observation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Unless it is pleaded and stated in the Election Petition as to how the result of the Returned Candidate will tilt by reason of non-compliance, the Election Petitioner cannot develop it during the course of the trial.
11. It is further submitted that under Order II Rule 1 CPC, every suit shall as far as practicable be framed so as to afford the ground for final decision upon the subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation concerning them. Under Order VI Rule 2, every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a suit in concise form of material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence at which they are to be proved. Under Order VI Rule 15, every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. The person verifying shall satisfy, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleadings, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true. The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed. Under Order VII Rule 11 (a), the plaint shall be rejected if it does not disclose the cause of action.
12. A similar provision under Section 83 (1) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 similar to Rule 3 (i) (ii) of Rules, 1995 mandates that an Election Petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the Election Petitioner relies. In Hari Shankarjain v. Sonia Gandhi the Apex Court held that the expression 'cause of action' has been compendiously defined to mean every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad. The function of the party is to present as full a picture of the cause of action with such further information in detail as to make the opposite party to understand the case he will have to meet. See Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez , Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari mere quoting the words of Section like chanting mantras does not amount to stating material facts. Material facts would include positive statement of facts as also positive averment of a negative fact, if necessary. In V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis the Apex Court has held, on a conspectus of a series of decisions of this Court, that material facts are such preliminary facts, which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish existence of a cause of action. Failure to plead 'material facts' is fatal to the Election Petition and no amendment of the pleadings is permissible to introduce such material facts after the time limit prescribed for filing the Election Petition. The said Harishankar Jain case (1 supra) is decided by a Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court. In the said case it is further held that it is the duty of the Court to examine the petition irrespective of any written statement or denial and reject the petition if it does not disclose a cause of action. To enable a Court to reject a plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, it should look at the plaint and nothing else. Courts have always frowned upon vague pleadings, which leave a wide scope to adduce any evidence. No amount of evidence can cure basic defect in the pleadings. Under Order 6 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, every pleading shall contain a statement in concise form of the material facts relied on by a party but not the evidence nor the law of which the court may take judicial notice.
13. In the instant case, I am of the opinion that the Election Petition filed by the 1st respondent suffers from virus not satisfied with the mandatory requirement of the pleading material facts as required under Rule 3 (i)(ii) of Rules, 1995 and the said Election Petition do not satisfy the requirement statutorily enacted and the judicially explained in a number of cases in the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court. The Election Petition is vague, bald in the allegations made and the most of which could not possibly be within the personal knowledge of the election petitioner but still verified the facts true to the best of her knowledge. It is not stated through whom she got the information and no material facts have been stated. The pleadings in the Election Petition cannot amount to disclosing any cause of action and are required to be rejected/dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Rule 3 (i)(ii) of 1995 Rules has to be read along with Rule 12 (d) of Rules, 1995. The petition shall contain a statement in concise form, the material facts on which the petitioner relies challenging the election of the petitioner herein, such Election Petition containing concise form furnishing the material facts on which the petitioner herein relies shall lead to arrive at an opinion of the Election Tribunal that the result of the Returned Candidate has been materially affected by non-compliance of the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders made thereunder or any improper reception or refusal or rejection of any fact or reception of any fact which is void. It is not stated the material particulars of the rejection of any valid votes in favour of the Election Petitioner or improper reception of any void vote in favour of the Returned Candidate and what are the particulars of the non-compliance of the Act, Rules and Orders and how the said so-called non-compliance of the provisions have materially affected the result of the election of the Returned Candidate. The pleadings of the Election Petition even if they are accepted as it is, the Election Tribunal cannot come to the conclusion that the declaration of the Returned Candidate has been materially affected.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in Mahendra Pal v. Ramdass Malanger and submitted that the Election Petition filed by the 1st respondent did contain adequate particulars on which the allegations of particular irregularities in counting were done, and, therefore, Election Petition cannot be rejected without there being any trial. The said case relates to the Assembly Constituency of Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Soudha and the elected candidate secured 11660 votes whereas the defeated candidate secured 11657 votes as many as 750 votes have been declared invalid. Thus, the returned candidate was elected by a margin of 3 votes only. It is stated that the total number of ballot papers which were shown to have been described was 35,310 but after counting the number of ballot papers as per Form 20-A was shown as 31,318. It was alleged that 8 votes, which had been counted in excess, had been illegally counted in favour of the returned candidate. In the said case, an application was also filed soon after the declaration of the result for recount but the Returning Officer rejected the said application. In those circumstances, the Apex Court held that the facts which are essentially required were pleaded. It was explained what are material facts and material particulars. The material facts are the facts, which are essential to disclose a complete cause of action, are the material facts and are essentially required to be pleaded. The distinction between the 'material facts' and "material particulars". It is also stated that failure to plead a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and incomplete allegation of such charges are liable to be struck off under Order VI Rule 16 CPC. In case of a petition suffering from deficiency of material particulars, the Court has the discretion to allow the petitioner to supply the required particulars even after the expiration of limitation. But no material fact unless already pleaded can be permitted to be introduced after the expiration of limitation. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Apex Court held that 8 votes were counted more than actually taken out from the ballot boxes and that cannot happen in any circumstances unless there is irregularity in the counting and the said difference of votes clearly shows that the counting was not properly done and has materially affected the election of Election Petitioner. That irregularity and illegality was found during the counting, and therefore, the said facts have no application to the present case.
15. In V. Narayanaswamy v. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu decided by a Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges, where the Madras High Court allowed a similar Miscellaneous Application filed by the Returned Candidate under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 CPC. On appeal, the Apex Court dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the Madras High Court dismissing the Election Petition in limine, as the Election Petition did not disclose any cause of action or triable issue. In the said case also, the Apex Court referred several decisions of the Supreme Court, explained the difference between the 'material facts' and 'material particulars'. While the failure to plead material facts is fatal to the Election Petition and no amendment of the pleading could be allowed to introduce such material facts after the time limit prescribed for filing the Election Petition, the absence of material particulars can be cured at a later stage by an appropriate amendment. If the petition suffers from lack of material facts, it is liable to be summarily rejected for want of cause of action and if the deficiency is only of material particular, the Court has discretion to allow the petitioner to supply the required particulars. There is difference between the 'material facts' and 'material particulars'. While the failure to plead the material facts is fatal to the Election Petition, the absence of material particulars can be cured at a later stage by an appropriate amendment. 'Material facts' mean the entire bundle of facts, which would constitute a complete cause of action and these must be concisely stated in the Election Petition. 'Material facts' and 'material particulars' certainly connote two different things. 'Material facts' are those facts, which constitute the cause of action. In the instant case, the Election Petition not only lacks 'material facts' but also it lacks 'material particulars'.
16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on another judgment of the Apex Court in Vadivelu v. Sundaram wherein the election of the post of the President of Vannavalkudi Village Panchayat in Tamil Nadu State was challenged. The Returned Candidate has secured 1011 votes and the Election Petitioner secured 1010 votes. Election Petition was filed and certain irregularities said to have been committed while counting of the votes. The Election Petition was allowed ordering recount of votes. Aggrieved by the said order, a similar application was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court. The revision was allowed by the High Court holding that the order of the Election Tribunal was illegal against which a Civil Appeal was filed before the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the High Court holding that the recount of the votes could be ordered very rarely and on specific allegation in the pleading in the Election Petition that illegality or irregularity was committed while counting. The petitioner who seeks recount should allege and prove that there was improper acceptance of invalid votes or improper rejection of valid votes. If the Court is satisfied about the truthfulness of the above allegation, it can order recount of votes. If it is proved that purity of elections has been tarnished and it has materially affected the result of the election whereby the defeated candidate is seriously prejudiced, the Court can resort to recount of votes under such circumstances to do justice between the parties. In the said case, though the Election Tribunal directed recount of votes and the difference of margin was only one vote, but the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal holding that no case was made out for recount which order upheld by the Apex Court and the said case supports the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
17. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent heavily relied on the decision of the Supreme Court decided by a Bench comprising of two Hon'ble Judges in Ashwani Kumar Sharma v. Yaduvansh Singh AIR 1998 SC 337. The said case related to the Lok Sabha elections and the allegations made in the said case was that the Election Petition does not contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relied and accordingly returned candidate filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VI Rule 16 CPC raising a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Election Petition and the High Court rejected the Election Petition under Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act as the Election Petition did not disclose a complete cause of action and, therefore, the election petition was not maintainable. The said order has been set aside by the Apex Court in an appeal filed against the order of the High Court. It is stated in the said case that various other particulars set out in the Election Petition in support of the contention regarding irregularities and illegality in the counting of votes. Whatever be the merit of such contentions, the Election Petition cannot be rejected at the preliminary stage on the ground that it does not contain a concise statement of material facts. It is held that the evidence in support of the pleas, which have been taken, or facts, which have been pleaded, cannot be confused with the concise statement of material facts which an Election Petition is required to set out under Section 83 (1)(a). It is stated that from the contents of the Election Petition, it is not possible to hold that a concise statement of material facts is not to be found in the petition. In the said case, the Apex Court held that it cannot be said that the material facts were not disclosing any cause of action or not containing a concise statement of material facts and on the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case, the Apex Court observed that whatever be the merits of such contentions, the Election Petition cannot be rejected at a preliminary stage on the ground that it does not contain a concise statement of material facts. The aforesaid decision was rendered by a Division Bench comprising of two Hon'ble Judges but whereas contrary to the said judgment there are other decisions cited above consisting of a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges and, therefore, the judgment rendered by a Bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges is binding over the judgment of the Bench consisting of two Hon'ble Judges.
18. The Tribunal without appreciating the facts in proper perspective and contentions of the Returned Candidate, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to reject the Election Petition and held that the Tribunal carefully considered all the rulings submitted by both the parties and the facts of the instant case differ from the circumstances existing in the rulings given by the petitioner and accordingly dismissed the petition. The Tribunal did not consider as to whether the Election Petition contain a statement in a concise form and the material particulars on which the Election Petitioner relied materially affecting the result of the Returned Candidate. The Election Petition filed by the Election Petitioner is bereft any material fact and it is not stated how the election of the Returned Candidate has been materially affected by non-compliance of the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders made thereunder or by improper reception or refusal or rejection in reception of any vote which is not valid. The Tribunal ought to have rejected the Election Petition, as the Election Petition filed by the Election Petitioner does not contain a statement in a concise form and the material facts on which the petitioner relied either for recount or votes or for setting aside the election of the Returned Candidate. As a matter of fact, the Election Petitioner did not pray for any recount of votes and she has simply prayed for declaration declaring that the Election Petitioner had won as Sarpanch of Vinukonda Gram Panchayat by setting aside the declaration of the Election Officer stating that the petitioner herein had won the election as illegal and void. The entire reading of the Election Petition does not disclose any cause of action either for recount or for setting aside the election of the petitioner herein.
19. For the foregoing reasons, the order under Revision is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Election Petition No. 3/2001 filed by the 1st respondent stands dismissed for non-compliance of Rule 3 (2) of Rules, 1995. There shall be no order as to costs.