Allahabad High Court
Manvendra Pratap Singh vs Sachin Yadav And 8 Others on 12 November, 2024
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:185482 Reserved on 09.07.2024 Delivered on 12.11.2024. Court No. - 4 Case :- ELECTION PETITION No. - 9 of 2022 Petitioner :- Manvendra Pratap Singh Respondent :- Sachin Yadav And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aalok Kumar Srivastava,In Person,Manvendra Pratap Singh (In Person),Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Narendra Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. The petitioner Mr. Manvendra Pratap Singh has questioned the election of returned candidate, namely Mr. Sachin Yadav on the ground of corrupt practice indulged into during process of election and hence for such corrupt practice, this Court may declare the election of a returned candidate to be void in view of provisions as contained under Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1981 read with Conduct of Election Rules 1961.
2. The ground of corrupt practice as such indulged in the process of election has come to be mentioned as ground nos. B,C,D, E and F in the election petition
3. In order to elaborate corrupt practice, it is pleaded that there was violation of Rule 49T of the conduct of the Election Rules, 1961 that has resulted in the victory of respondent no. 1, Sachin Kumar.
4. Vide ground b, it is stated that three of the EVM machines placed upon table for the purpose of counting, did not show any result in the 30th and 34th round and upon re-fixation for 35th and 36th round 23 EVM machines did not respond so there was no counting beyond 32nd round.
5. Vide ground C, it is stated that upon querry being made from the District Magistrate, he informed the applicant petitioner that polling officer/agent committed mistake in closing the machine after completion of voting on 20th February, 2022 and so there was violation of Rules 49 T, read with Rules 66-A of the Conduct Rules, 1961. Vide ground D, it is stated that there was no seal placed upon these machines and vide ground f, it is stated that this corrupt practice in functioning of EVM machine has affected result of the 96 Legislative Assembly Constituency Jasrana. Vide ground g, conspiracy has been attributed to the polling agents as well as returning officers. An
6. An application has been filed by the returned candidate under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, raising objection as to the maintainability of the election petition on the ground that it lacks 'material fact' qua allegations made and more so the allegations being sweeping in nature without substance to form a core of action. It is further pleaded that the grounds raised qua corrupt practice lack necessary material facts and ingredients to render petition not triable. It is further pleaded that vague allegations have been regarding mistake in putting seal on the EVM, as neither any particular of machine, nor any date or time has been disclosed with regard to query made to the District Magistrate and reply made by him. Thus according to the pleadings raised in affidavit filed in support of application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petition does not disclose a cause of action to be tried and hence the election petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
7. With the consent of the parties, the Court proceeds to consider and decide the Order VII Rule 11(a) application first.
8. Sri N.K.Pandey, learned Advocate appearing for the returned candidate has argued in support of his application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) that in the initial paragraphs 1 to 9 only general informations have been detailed regarding election schedule, name of candidates and the political parties, in paragraph 10 of the petition total number of votes obtained by election petitioner and respondent no. 1 of each round of voting has been disclosed though alleged to be incorrectly recorded in petition and so also details of vote counts have been pleaded in paragraph 11 of the petition. But so far as grounds raised in paragraph 12 are concerned, vide sub-clause A,B,C,D,E,F and G, it is argued that petitioner has not complied with mandatory provisions as contained under Section 83 by not setting-forth full particulars of the corrupt practice. It is argued that though grounds have been mentioned in various clauses of paragraph 12 but no particulars of 'corrupt practice' as such has been detailed in support thereof even successive paragraphs.
9. Regarding ground no. 'A', which is a stark ground of entire petition qua violation of the Rule 49T of the conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Mr. Pandey argued that if provision is read with Section 45 and 49 of the R.P. Act, 1951, it would become clear that the polling agent of candidates are to be deployed by the candidates themselves at polling stations, who, may desire to fix/ put their seal and they are permitted to do if they want but election petition is absolutely silent as it fails to demonstrate and substantiate for not giving those material particulars which may lead to at lest prima facie establish violation of Rule, 49-T to make out a ground to try election petition.
10. He argues that neither name of the agent, nor person, nor date and time has been disclosed about query made from the District Magistrate concerned, nor any supportive document has been filed to demonstrate as to on which particular date and time a particular polling agent had put a query to District Magistrate regarding mistake committed by polling officer by not putting seal
11. Mr. Pandey has also questioned the authenticity of handmade chart appended with schedule. He also argued that there was no affidavt of corrupt practice as such filed along with election petition, which was also required to be filed under the Act and the Rules.
12. Mr. Pandey has heavily relied upon recent authority of this Court in the case Prashant Kumar Singh v. Hakim Lal, 2024(2) ADJ 853, in which for lack of material particulars in the election petition in support of the ground of corrupt practice, the petition was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC.
13. Meeting the arguments advanced by learned Advocate, Mr. Pandey, Sri A.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the election petitioner submitted that violation of Rule 49-T is itself sufficient a ground to constitute corrupt practice, because it has been detailed out in the ground itself that certain Electronic Voting Machine were not responding at the time of counting of votes. He submitted that it was because of non functioning of these EVMs that count of votes mentioned in chart has been questioned as there was no counting after the 32nd round and chart has already been appended alongwith the schedule. He argued that it was a triable issue as to whether violation of Rule 49T had taken place in a particular case or not and this could be tried only after parties were permitted to lead evidence. He submitted that this question of sealing of electronic voting machines could be answered only when the District Election Officer was summoned to witness box. This according to him, it is a premature stage to hold that material particulars having not been pleaded and brought on record, the election petition deserved dismissal under and Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the CPC.
14. Mr. Srivastava has further submitted that corrupt practice can be either in terms of law or in terms of fact. According to him non exercise of or even wrongful exercise of power under relevant provisions itself may amount to 'corrupt practice' and that can be proved only when parties are permitted to lead evidence. Answering the question of particulars of the polling agents being not given or the persons who had enquired from the District Magistrate, Mr. Srivastava has reiterated the argument as above.
15. Regarding argument of sweeping allegations made in the election petition with no substance, Mr. Srivastava submitted that this is not the stage to assess correctness of allegations as it would all depend upon sufficiency of evidence to be led at the stage of trial. On the point of there being no affidavit of corrupt practice as such filed, Mr. Srivastava submits that it is a curable defect which can of-course always be removed and this will not hit at the very root of the election petition at this stage.
16. Regarding grounds not being elaborated further giving 'material facts and full particulars' as per action 83(1) of R.P. Act, 1951, he submitted that these are crucial pleas taken which can be tested only after evidence is led by the parties as per General Civil Law.
17. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find it necessary here to reproduce the ground nos. B,C,D and E to discuss it further to find as to whether there is a cause of action available or petition lacks requisite cause of action and so deserves to be thrown at the very threshold. The grounds are reproduced hereunder:
" B- Becqause due to negligent and malafide intention of Polling Agents and Presiding Officer, Rule 49-T of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 was fully violated by not sealing the voiting Machine after poll.
C. Because, at the time of counting of votes in 96 Legislative Assembly Constituency Jasrana, 14 Tables were fixed for counting of votes of total Booths, and from Table No. 1 to Table No. 8 the counting of 34rounds were to be conducted for counting of votes and from Tables No. 10 to 14 there were 33 rounds to be fixed fair counting of votes and during counting of votes, either one EVM Machine in one Table or two EVM Machine at other Table were not showing the result up to 33 and 34 rounds of counting of votes, as such District Election Officer gain fixed round no. 35 and 36 for counting of votes 23 EVM Machine, which were not showing the result during counting D. Because when the querry was made from the District Election Officer who informed these EVM Machines by mistake of polling Agents/Officers it could not be closed after completion of election dated 20.02.2022, whereas it is mandatory for the Polling Agents as well as the concerned Returning Officer to close the EVM Machine after completion of casting of votes and it is provided in Rule 49-T of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 to seal the EVM Machines in a particular manner as provided in the guide line of EVM Machine so as to prevent the corrupt practice but same was not done by the authorities as provided in law.
E. Because all the 23 EVM Machines were closed at Polling Booths by Returning Officer on 10th March, 2022 after passing 18 days, from 20.2.2022 without taking written permission from Agents or the candidates of 96 Legislative Assembly Constituency Jasrana, which is against the guide line of Election Commission or violated the Rule 49-T and 66A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 as after polling or casting of votes from the electors through EVM Machines, the same are to be closed/sealed on the same day i.e. 20.02.2022 but same was not done by the Polling Agents and Presiding Officer only to give benefit to returned candidates."
18. From a bare reading of the aforementioned ground no. B and D it is clear that violation of Rule 49T has been pleaded as corrupt practice but what corrupt practice as such was committed and what was particulars and material facts to show that EVMs were not sealed after election was over and voting closed on 20th February, 2022. There is only one sentence added that District Magistrate gave the information qua mistake of officer handling EVMs. The grounds are silent about the particulars as to who had put this query to the District Magistrate and to whom District Magistrate informed that EVMs were not sealed.
19. The grounds do not detail out particulars as to agents and officers who were to put a seal upon particular EVMs, nor details of EVM have been mentioned. The 32 rounds of vote count is not disputed but it is said that 33 to 35 round there was no counting of vote but there is no supportive material facts stated as to how petitioner got this knowledge that EVMs were locked and were not responding at the time of counting of votes. Paragraphs that follow grounds, namely, paragraph nos. 13,14 and 15 do not refer to any details qua particulars regarding violation of Rule 49T, nor, again name of any agent has been disclosed, nor EVMs. Details have been given. A details of round counting polling station-wise as given in paragraph 13 cannot be presumed to be result of a failure of Electronic Voting Machine at the time of vote cast. The relevant paragraph 13 and 14 are reproduced hereunder:
"That the 23 EVM Machines which were not closed by the Polling Agents on the date of polling i.e. 20.2.2022 but the District Election Officer as well as Returning Officer without taking written permission from the Agent of contesting candidates illegally and arbitrarily decided for counting the 23 EVM Machines in additional 35 and 36 round without ensuring that the aforesaid 23 EVM Machines are tempered or not. For king perusal of this Hon'ble Court the chart of 23 places of Jasrana Constituency where EVM Machine were not closed and counted 35 and 36 round are given below:
35 Round of Counting Table No. Polling Station Serial No. Name of Polling Station
1. 197
J.H.Sarai Matiya
2. 435 Primary P. Indaryee
3. 255 Primary P. Ghunpai, Room No. 2
4. 32 P.P. Bhujner, Room No. 2
5. 126 P.P. Kachhwai, Room No. 2
6. 308 P.P. Nijampur, Room No. 2.
7. 431 K-P.P. Baligarh Devjeet, Room No. 2.
8. 194 P.P. Ujirpur
9. 74 P.P. Kadara, Room No. 2
10. 452 Janta V-Kataina Harsa, Room No. 2
11. 285 J.H. Shekhpur Hatwant
12. 105 Pawansut E.K.Sunav
13. 106 P.P. Ulaitpur
14. 140 Panchayatghar Andhpur 36 Round of Counting
1. 135 P.P. Bhudgadda
2. 470 P.P. Sadipur
3. 358 K-P.P. Jasrana, Room No. 1
4. 344 P.P. Ghaghau Khurd
5. 150 P.P. Baupur Tapasya, Room No. 2
6. 415 Dayanand Saraswati Inter College Jajumai, Room No. 2
7. 333 J.H. Kheriya
8. 221 J.H. Machan
9. 444 P.P. Keshopur "
20. In order to find answer to objection raised as to maintainability for want of cause of action, it is necessary here to discuss the law on the point to find as to whether cause of action as such exists. Section 83 (1) of R.P. Act, 1981 in its entirety is reproduced hereunder:
"83. Contents of petition.--
(1) An election petition--
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies;
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and
(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:
Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.
(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition."
21. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that election petition must set-forth full particulars of corrupt practice and name of parties alleged to have committed such practice, date, place and the commission of such practice. The proviso further says that where corrupt practice is alleged petition should be accompanied by an affidavit on prescribed form in support of allegation of such corrupt practice and particulars thereof.
22. As far as provisions contained in proviso part are concerned, I do not find there to be any supportive affidavit of corrupt practice as such. There is only one affidavit in support of election petition in which consists of verification of various contents of the petition. There is no averment in the affidavit as to nature of corrupt practice as such, nor any application has been moved seeking leave to file such an affidavit. Still further, material facts as to corrupt practice and full particulars that were required to be pleaded and detailed out in the paragraph, supportive of the grounds, are also lacking in the present petition as which EVM machines of which election booths were managed by which particular election officers and who failed to seal. Any detail of any polling agent present at the time of sealing of EVMs, nor any detail of any person asking for verification from District Magistrate about non working of EVMs at the time of counting of votes and name of persons and polling agents to whom District Magistrate replied that EVMs were not sealed by the polling agents, have not been disclosed at all. In the absence of material particulars, it is difficult to hold that grounds themselves are sufficient to try the election petition. The laws relating to election petition have been repeatedly held by this Court as well as by Supreme Court to be strictly construed and looking to the provisions as contained in Section 83 of the R.P. Act, 1951, I find merit in the submissions advanced by Sri N.K.Pandey, that petition lacks concise statement of material facts particular qua corrupt practice. Further I observe that non compliance of provisions may render an election to be void but in order to try a petition on this ground one has to plead as to when and in what manner violation of relevant mandatory provision took place. The relevant provisions as contained under Section 49-T is reproduced hereunder:
"49T. Sealing of voting machine after poll.
(1)As soon as practicable after the closing of the poll, the presiding officer shall close the control unit to ensure that no further votes can be recorded and shall detach the balloting unit from the control unit.
(2)The control unit and the balloting unit shall thereafter be sealed, and secured separately in such manner as the Election Commission may direct and the seal used for securing them shall be so affixed that it will not be possible to open the units without breaking the seals.
(3)The polling agents present at the polling station, who desire to affix their seals, shall also be permitted to do so."
23. From a bare reading of the provisions as noted above, it clearly transpires that every political party may have its polling agent to affix his seal on behalf of party's candidate and for that permission will be granted and then further details have been given how the seal is to be put and how the unit to be detached and placed under seal. Nothing has been pleaded in the grounds or in supportive paragraphs to demonstrate particulars and statement of fact that opportunity to a particular polling agent was denied to put his seal or that the electronic voting machine was not sealed or taken away in absence and ignorance of a polling agent or that machine was placed at a place making it vulnerable to human intervention. In a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Prashant Kumar Singh (supra), this aspect relating to Section 83 of the R.P. Act has been discussed in detail. The relevant paragraph 68-69, 70,71 and 72 of the judgment are held thus:
"68. After discussing a great deal, authorities of the Supreme Court delivered from time to time vide 28 the Court summarize the law as under:
"28. The legal position enunciated in afore-stated cases may be summed up as under:-
i. Section 83(1)(a) of RP Act, 1951 mandates that an Election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. If material facts are not stated in an Election petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone, as the case would be covered by Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code.
ii. The material facts must be such facts as would afford a basis for the allegations made in the petition and would constitute the cause of action, that is every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff/petitioner to prove, if traversed in order to support his right to the judgement of court. Omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of plaint would become bad.
iii. Material facts mean the entire bundle of facts which would constitute a complete cause of action. Material facts would include positive statement of facts as also positive averment of a negative fact, if necessary.
iv. In order to get an election declared as void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, the Election petitioner must aver that on account of non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act or any rules or orders made under the Act, the result of the election, in so far as it concerned the returned candidate, was materially affected.
v. The Election petition is a serious matter and it cannot be treated lightly or in a fanciful manner nor is it given to a person who uses it as a handle for vexatious purpose.
vi. An Election petition can be summarily dismissed on the omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action, or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, in exercise of the powers under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC read with the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the RP Act."
69. The court in that case was dealing with ground as contemplated under Section 100 (1)(d) (iv) of the R.P. Act to declare election of the returned candidate void. The bone of contention was, as the Court observed, with regard to certain financial issues relating to income tax dues of her spouse where she had mentioned 'No' and then she stated that her spouse had bank accounts in Singapore with deposits in dollar in further columns prescribed for under form 26 but status of income tax was not disclosed. The Court held election petition carried bald allegations as to the statement of facts. The concise statement of facts and setting-forth of particular was absolutely vague so much so that no prima facie view could be formed as to the allegations made so to hold that there was complete cause of action to maintain election petition. Vide 31, 32 and 33 the Court held :
"31. Mere bald and vague allegations without any basis would not be sufficient compliance of the requirement of stating material facts in the Election Petition. As well settled not only positive statement of facts, even a positive statement of negative fact is also required to be stated, as it would be a material fact constituting a cause of action. The material facts which are primary and basic facts have to be pleaded by the Election petitioner in support of the case set up by him to show his cause of action and omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action, entitling the returned candidate to pray for dismissal of Election petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.
32. It is also significant to note that an affidavit in Form 26 along with the nomination paper, is required to be furnished by the candidate as per Rule 4A of the said Rules read with Section 33 of the said Act. The Returning Officer is empowered either on the objections made to any nomination or on his own motion, to reject any nomination on the grounds mentioned in Section 36(2), including on the ground that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. However, at the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper and the affidavit in the Form 26 furnished by the Appellant-returned candidate, neither any objection was raised, nor the Returning Officer had found any lapse or non-compliance of Section 33 or Rule 4A of the Rules. Assuming that the election petitioner did not have the opportunity to see the Form No. 26 filled in by the Appellant-returned candidate, when she submitted the same to the Returning Officer, and assuming that the Returning Officer had not properly scrutinized the nomination paper of the appellant, and assuming that the election petitioner had a right to question the same by filing the Election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the said Act, then also there are no material facts stated in the petition constituting cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act. In absence of material facts constituting cause of action for filing Election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the said Act, the Election petition is required to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 13(1)(a) of the RP Act.
33. As elaborately discussed earlier, Section 83(1)(a) of RP Act mandates that an Election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which petitioner relies, and which facts constitute a cause of action. Such facts would include positive statement of facts as also positive averment of negative fact. Omission of a singular fact would lead to incomplete cause of action. So far as the present petition is concerned, there is no averment made as to how there was non-compliance with provisions of the Constitution or of RP Act or of the Rules or Order made thereunder and as to how such non-compliance had materially affected the result of the election, so as to attract the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, for declaring the election to be void. The omission to state such vital and basic facts has rendered the petition liable to be dismissed under rder VII, Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 83(i)(a) of the RP Act, 1951."
70. Applying the above principle to the facts stated in various paragraph in support of the ground on the aspects of movable and immovable property running from ground to paragraph 12,13,14,15,16 and 17 in the present election petition, I find that those details though have already been given, of returned candidate of statement of accounts etc. but in the absence of affidavit filed in support of nomination paper and the affidavit on form 26 as well, it could not be concluded even prima facie that there was any concealment of material facts and particular details indicating corrupt practice in question so as to hold the election petition disclosed a substantial ground to entertain it. Entire bundle of facts that have been stated in paragraphs of the petition, even if are examined very minutely with microscopic eyes, would only lead to a conclusion then that certain statements of facts made regarding criminal antecedents with certain particulars and details regarding immovable properties but what kind of concealment, what kind of misleading statement of suppressed material accounted to in the nomination papers are absolutely vague.
71. One of the arguments could be that, even if material facts are disclosed and material particulars are lacking to some extent then material facts that constitute cause of action would hold petition maintainable. This argument was also advanced by learned counsel appearing for the election petitioner in the case of petitioner V. Narayanswami (supra) as were referred to, which is reproduced hereunder:
"27. It is contended by Mr Bhandare that all the material facts have been stated in the election petition and that for lack of material particulars, the petition could not have been thrown out at the threshold. He said opportunity should have been given to the appellant to supply the material particulars. It is really a strange proposition to advance. Till the date of the impugned judgment, the appellant had persisted that the petition did not lack material particulars and that the verification was in accordance with the Code and the affidavit in support of the corrupt practice in the form prescribed. Admittedly, the petition lacked material particulars, the verification to the petition was not in accordance with the Code and the affidavit did not conform to the form prescribed. At the first opportunity, the respondent raised objection that the petition lacked both material facts and the material particulars and that the verification to the petition and the affidavit were not in accordance with law. This was repeated in the miscellaneous application (Original Application No. 298 of 1998). In the counter-affidavit and in the reply to the miscellaneous application, the appellant persisted in his stand and termed the objections raised by the respondent as irrelevant. It is not that the appellant did not have the opportunity to correct his mistake which he could have easily done in the rejoinder filed by him to the counter-affidavit of the respondent or even his reply to the miscellaneous application (OA No. 298 of 1998). He had every opportunity even at that stage to supply the material particulars which admittedly were lacking and also to amend the verification and to file the affidavit in the form prescribed but for reasons best known to him, he failed to do so. The existence of material facts, material particulars, correct verification and the affidavit are relevant and important when the petition is based on the allegation of corrupt practice and in the absence of those, the court has jurisdiction to dismiss the petition. The High Court has undoubtedly the power to permit amendment of the petition for supply of better material particulars and also to require amendment of the verification and filing of the required affidavit but there is no duty cast on the High Court to direct suo motu the furnishing of better particulars and requiring amendment of the petition for the purpose of verification and filing of proper affidavit. In a matter of this kind the primary responsibility for furnishing full particulars of the alleged corrupt practices and to file a petition in full compliance with the provisions of law is on the petitioner. (See in this connection the Constitution Bench decision in Bhikaji Keshao Joshi v. Brijlal Nandlal Biyani [AIR 1955 SC 610 : (1955) 2 SCR 428] SCR at p. 144.)"
72. However, the Court in that case after going through every details discussed in the petition came to finally hold that petition not only lacked material facts but also lack material particulars with the effect that there was defective verification and affidavit was also not in the form prescribed order and hence confirmed the order of the High Court rejected the election petition vide paragraph 30 and 31 thus:
"30. It will thus be seen that the election petition not only lacked the material facts, it lacked material particulars, defective verification and the affidavit filed was not in the form prescribed. Moreover, the ingredients of corrupt practices, as defined in Section 123(1)(B) and 123(2) of the Act are also lacking. It is also not the case of the appellant that any MLA whom the appellant could not meet, received any gratification, as defined, whether as a motive or a reward for voting or refraining from voting, or there was any inducement or attempt to induce any such MLA to vote or refrain from voting. Also it is not the case of the appellant that any undue influence was exercised with the free exercise of any electoral right of any MLA which right, as noted above, has been defined in clause (d) of Section 79 of the Act. There is no allegation if any particular MLA was induced to vote or not to vote in a particular way because he was entertained or otherwise. The allegation is that the appellant himself could not meet the MLAs and he believed that if he had been given a chance to meet them he would have influenced their vote in his favour and against their party of affiliations. There is no allegation that the MLAs were prevented or influenced from freely exercising their electoral right. As stated earlier the appellant did not show as to why he could not meet the MLAs on 2-10-1997 when they were available in Pondicherry. The material fact must be that the appellant was prevented from meeting the MLAs which he did not allege and as to how he was so prevented would constitute material particulars.
31. The election petition read as a whole did not disclose any cause of action or triable issue. Considering the facts of the case and the principles of law applicable, the election petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court in limine"
24. The law as discussed above and propounded by Courts, if applied to the facts of the case in hand, it can be conclusively held and is held as well that election petition lacks material facts and full particulars as to the alleged corrupt practice to constitute a cause of action to hold trial. Thus election petition fails on the touchstone of Section 83 of the R.P. Act, 1951
24. In view above, therefore, I find merit in the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and accordingly the same is allowed.
26. The election petition stands rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 12.11.2024.
Sanjeev