Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Dhar Tripathi vs Vijama Yadav And 23 Others on 2 July, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 27.4.2024
Delivered on 02.7.2024
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106944
Case :- ELECTION PETITION No. - 16 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rakesh Dhar Tripathi
Respondent :- Vijama Yadav And 23 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhiraj Singh,In Person,Praveen Kumar Shukla,Rakesh Dhar Tripathi,Santosh Kumar Tripathi,Udai Chandani
Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Kumar Yadav,Jitendra Prasad Kushwaha,Ram Kailash
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Application No.07 of 2022
1. Heard Sri P.P. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhishek Yadav, learned counsel for applicant/respondent no.1/returned candidate and Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi and Sri Praveen Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for election petitioner.
2. The above noted application was heard by this Court on 31.5.2023 and orders were reserved. On 17.7.2023 the following order was passed:-
Order on Application No. 7 of 2022
1. Heard Shri Abhishek Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent no.1 and Shri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the election petitioner/opposite party.
2. This application has been filed under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C by the respondent no. 1 stating that the election of the returned candidate / respondent no. 1 has been challenged before this Court by the election petitioner / defeated candidates but election petition deserves to be rejected at the very outset.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 states that Section 87(1) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as R.P. Act) postulates that the trial of election petition shall be conducted in accordance with provisions of C.P.C. As per order 4, Rule (1)(2) every election petition is required to comply with the procedure provided under Order 6 and 7 C.P.C. Order 6, Rule 2 C.P.C contemplates that pleadings made in election petition shall contain in concise form, the material facts whereon the election petitioner has based his claim. He is not required to state the legal inferences to be drawn therefrom.
4. The election petition does not discloses as to how the election result of the returned candidate has been materially affected on account of alleged non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 33(1) and 123(4) of R.P. Act and Rule 4(a) of Election Rules. Hence, the election petition is hit by Section 83(1)(a) of R.P. Act. The grounds in the election petition are vague and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of R.P. Act which provides that result of election of returned candidate should be proved to have been materially affected by non-compliance of provisions of the Constitution of India or R.P. Act or other Order or Rule made under the R.P. Act. There is no averment on record to prove that the election result dated 10.03.2022 in dispute of the constituency concerned was materially affected by any act of election petitioner.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the returned candidate / respondent no. 1 that due to absence of material facts and particulars disclosing complete cause of action for setting aside the election in the dispute, the election petition deserves to be rejected as per order 7, Rule 2 (a) C.P.C. The facts constituting the cause of action have not been stated in the election petition and therefore in view of the Order 7 Rule 1(e) read with Section 87(1) of the R.P. Act, the election petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Counsel for the returned candidate / respondent no. 1 has placed reliance on number of judgments of the Apex Court support of his contention.
7. Counsel for the election petitioner / defeated candidate has filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the application of the respondent no. 1 / returned candidate stating that the election petition contains the concise statement of all the material facts whereon the petitioner placed reliance and he has also given the particulars of corrupt practices adopted by the returned candidate / respondent no. 1. It has been duly assigned and verified by the election petitioner. It has been pleaded that detailed reply shall be given at the time of final arguments of the election petition and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C deserves to be dismissed.
8. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed to the aforesaid counter affidavit stating that there are no particulars of corrupt practices in the statement of material facts mentioned in the election petition.
9. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that in the election petition the pleadings have been made that the election of respondent no.1 / returning candidate has been materially affected on account of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 33(1) and 123(4) of R.P. Act and Rule 4-A of Election Rules. Since her nomination was illegal it amounted to corrupt practices. In her affidavit, she has stated that no charges have been framed against her in the criminal case being Session Trial No. 2390 of 2010, registered at P.S. Jhunsi, Prayagraj and Session Trial No. 3225 of 2020 (State vs. Ashok Kumar and Another) registered as P.S- Sarai Inayat, District- Prayagraj, when the charges were framed in the aforesaid case much prior to filing of nomination in the disputed election. The returning officer overlooked the aforesaid fact while scrutinizing the nomination papers of returned candidate despite the same being pointed out by the election petitioner / returned candidate.
10. List this petition on 21.07.2023 for further hearing on this application at 2:00 p.m."
3. Thereafter above noted application was heard number of times and adjournments were sought by one side or other, but the application was not argued. Thereafter another application No.24 of 2023 seeking certain amendments in the election petition was filed by election petitioner and it was finally heard on 19.9.2023 and allowed by the order dated 03.10.2023. Consequently election petition was permitted to amend the election petition and add paragraph Nos. 10-A, 10-B and ground L in the petition, which was complied by the election petitioner and material particulars of corrupt practice adopted by respondent no.1/returned candidate were brought on record.
4. Thereafter adjournment was sought by respondent no.1/returned candidate on the ground that the respondent no.1/returned candidate has preferred Special Leave to Appeal before the Apex Court challenging the order dated 03.10.2023 passed on Application No.24 of 2023 (Amendment Application) and in the meantime, another application No.29 of 2023 under Order VI, Rule 16 of C.P.C. read with Section 83 of R.P. Act was filed by the returned candidate/respondent no.1 and after number of adjournments both the applications were finally heard on 27.4.2024 and orders were reserved. There was serious dispute between the parties as to whether application under Order VI, Rule 16 C.P.C. read with Section 83 of R.P. Act should be heard first (Application No.29 of 2023) or the Application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. (Application No.7 of 2023) should be heard and decided first. In order to resolve the dispute between the parties, both applications have been heard together. The above noted application was heard earlier by this Court on 31.5.2023. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit were exchanged between the parties.
5. Before hearing of the above noted application, a supplementary affidavit was filed by learned counsel for respondent no.1/returned candidate to the application aforesaid under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. stating that on 22.12.2023 election petitioner has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 13(1)(e) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. He has been rendered disqualified under Article 191 (1) read with Article 173 of Constitution of India. Having been convicted he has become disqualified by virtue of Section 8 (1)(m) of R.P. Act for being chosen to fill the seat in the Legislative Assembly of the State. It has been pleaded that the cause of action of filing of election petition has ceased to exist and the continuance of the proceedings of the election petition has become futile exercise. The election petitioner has incurred constitutional disqualification due to his conviction on 22.12.2023. Notice was issued to the returned candidate/respondent no.1 as per Chapter XV-A of the Rules of the Court but the copy of nomination paper stated to have been filed by the election petitioner making it part of Schedule-I, as per averment in paragraph No.7 of the election petition, was not served upon the respondent no.1/returned candidate. Therefore pleadings in the election petition are defective and petition is not worth triable. Non-filing of nomination paper alongwith election petition as part of schedule-I proves that primary evidence is not in existence. Hence there is no cause of action entitling the election petitioner to challenge the election of respondent no.1/returned candidate. Further copies of nomination papers as described in paragraph nos. 7 & 8 of the election petition stated to have been made part of Schedule-I & II of the election petition were not even got served on respondent no.1/returned candidate. These schedules are integral part of the election petition, but were deliberately suppressed, when the notices were sent by Registry of this Court. It has further been pleaded that neither election petition nor schedules, which are integral part of election petition, were attested by the election petitioner under his own signature to be the true copy of the election petition. Hence election petition deserves to be dismissed due to violation of procedure contemplated under Sections 80 and 81 of R.P. Act. The concise statement of material facts as envisaged under Section 83 (1)(a) & (b) of the R.P. Act have not been disclosed in the election petition. The date and place of commission of corrupt practice of undue influence and false statement, as pleaded in election petition, have not been disclosed. The requirements of pleadings as per Section 83 (1)(b) of R.P. Act has not been complied. Even after Amendment Application No.24 of 2023 of election petitioner was allowed by this Court on 03.10.2023 and paragraph Nos. 10-A, 10-B and ground No. L were incorporated in the election petition, laying down the pleadings in support of corrupt practice and undue influence, no affidavit in Form 25 was filed by the election petitioner in accordance with the provisions contained in "proviso" appended to Section 83 (1) read with Section 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Hence it has been prayed that Application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. aforesaid filed by respondent no.1/returned candidate may be allowed.
6. In reply to the supplement affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1/returned candidate, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by election petitioner. It has been averred therein that the above noted application was heard on 31.5.2023 and order was reserved. Thereafter, on 17.7.2023 the above noted application was directed to be listed for further hearing and after more than one year and six months of the filing of above noted application, supplementary affidavit was filed to the aforesaid application raising number of grounds which is not permissible in law in view of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Ajay Arjun Singh Vs. Sharadendu Tiwari and others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 4087. It has further been pleaded that the grounds raised in the supplementary affidavit deserve to be ignored. It has further been stated that the conviction of the election petitioner on 22.12.2023 in the case under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act will not effect this election petition since the cause of action for filing the same arose in March, 2022 after declaration of the result of member of Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Election, 2022. The election petitioner fulfilled the eligibility conditions laid down in Section 81 (1) of R.P. Act at the time of filing of the application. Application No.6 of 2022 filed by respondent no.1/returned candidate under Section 81 read with Section 86 of the Act has already been dismissed by this Court on 28.7.2023, which has attained finality and therefore, questioning of locus standi of the election petitioner again is unwarranted. There is no provision under R.P. Act, which provides that if during the pendency of election petition, the election petitioner incurs disqualification, his election petition becomes "not maintainable". It has been pleaded that even if the prayer no.2 in the election petition becomes redundant on account of conviction of election petitioner, he is entitled to get relief as per prayer no.1, which requires declaration of election of respondent no.1/returned candidate as M.L.A. from 257, Pratpur Legislative Assembly, Prayagraj, U.P. as void. In support of his contentions, reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the Cases of Sejal Glass Limited Vs. Navilan Merchants Private Limited, reported in AIR 2017 SC, 4477, and Madhav Prasad Aagarwal Vs. Axis Bank reported in 2019 (7) SCC 158, have been made wherein it has been held that plaint cannot be rejected in part by exercising power under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. It has been pleaded that true copy of election petition alongwith notice issued were sent to respondent no.1/returned candidate. The election petitioner has filed certified copy of nomination paper of election petitioner before this Court in January, 2024. The controversy in the election petition is whether on account of not mentioning the details regarding framing of charge in two criminal cases, which were pending against respondent no.1, election of respondent no.1 was liable to be declared void under Section 100 (1)(b) of R.P. Act or not? It was denied that the election petitioner has not pleaded the facts related to corrupt practice adopted by respondent no.1/returned candidate by not disclosing details of the charges framed by the trail court in two criminal cases, which were pending against respondent no.1/returned candidate at the time of filing of affidavit in Form No.25 by the respondent no.1 alongwith nomination paper in the relevant columns of the affidavit. The election petitioner has clearly stated in affidavit (Form No.25) filed alongwith election petition regarding nature of corrupt practice adopted by respondent no.1. Amendment application filed praying for adding paragraph nos.10-A & 10-B and ground L in the election petitioner were duly supported by an affidavit and it is denied that the petitioner petitioner has not filed affidavit in Form 25 alongwith the election petition. It has been stated that the aforesaid defect is curable defect and as per the judgment in the case of Chandrakant Uttam Chodanker Vs. Sri Dayanand Rayu, 2005 (2) SCC 188, defect can be cured.
7. In the supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed by respondent no.1/returned candidate, it has been pleaded that the question of constitutional disqualification as contained in Article 191 read with the statutory disqualification as envisaged in Section 8 of R.P. Act has been raised, which has not been replied in the supplementary counter affidavit. It has further been reiterated that no affidavit in Form 25 as provided under Election Rules and required to be filed as per Rule 94-A read with the proviso appended to Section 83 of R.P., Act in support of amended paragraph Nos. 10-A & 10-B and ground L, has been filed even after raising of such objection in the supplementary affidavit by the respondent no.1/returned candidate by the election petitioner. Therefore opportunity to cure the defect provided to the election petitioner has not been availed. The defect of not filing of supporting affidavit in Form 25 regarding the newly added paragraph Nos. 10-A & 10- and ground L bringing on record material particulars to prove corrupt practice adopted by respondent no.1/returned candidate is still missing in the election petition.
8. After considering the rival pleadings and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. has been filed principally on following grounds:-
(i) The concise statement of material facts regarding corrupt practices as committed by respondent no.1/returned candidate required to be stated in the election petition as per Section 83 (1)(a)(b) of R.P. Act have not been disclosed in the election petition and therefore, the election petition deserves to be dismissed in limine.
(ii) The second issue is that the copy of nomination paper, which is part of Schedule -I of the election petition, has been deliberately suppressed and not made part of election petition and election petition has also not been attested by the election petitioner by his own signatures in the copy of election petition provided to the respondent no.1/returned candidate as per Section 81(3) of R.P. Act. Hence election petition deserves to be dismissed as per Section 86 of R.P. Act.
(iii) No affidavit in prescribed Form 25 has been filed in support of the averments made in amended paragraph Nos. 10-A & 10-B and ground L in the election petition as per proviso to Section 83(1) (b) of R.P. Act read with Rule 94-A of Conduct of the Election Rules, 1961.
(iv) Whether despite raising of objection regarding non filing of aforesaid affidavit in Form 25 in support of paragraph Nos.10-A & 10-B and ground L in the election petition, election petitioner has sought leave of this court to fill the above locuna or has filled the same.
9. This Court finds that initially there were no pleadings regarding corrupt practices adopted by the respondent no.1/returned candidate in the election petition. After the amendment application of the election petitioner was allowed, paragraph nos. 10-A & 10-B and ground L were incorporated in the election petition by the election petitioner, but the undesirable fact is that no affidavit as required under Form 25 was filed in support of the aforesaid averments incorporated in the election petition by way of amendments. After going through the affidavit earlier filed in Form 25 as per Rule 94-A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 by the election petitioner in support of election petition, it is not clear that it is not an affidavit sworn before the Oath Commissioner and there is only verification of the pleadings by the election petitioner on 25.4.2022. No swearing of the aforesaid affidavit was made before any Oath Commissioner, when it is mentioned in the affidavit that it has been sworn before Oath Commissioner of Court. Therefore, there is no valid affidavit required as per law in support of the election petition. This Court may usefully refer Section 83 of R.P. Act, which is as follows:-
"Section 83 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951
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."
10. Learned counsel for the election petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Ajay Arjun Singh (supra); Sejal Glass Limited (supra); Madhav Prasad Aagarwal (supra); Chandrakant Uttam Chodanker (supra) in support of his submissions that application aforesaid cannot be allowed. He has also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of G.M. Siddeshwar (supra) and A. Manju Vs. Prajwal Revanna Alias Prajwal R., (2021) 15 SCALE 299. This Court finds that election petitioner laid stressed on the case of Ajay Arjun Singh (supra) in support of his contention that the filing of supplementary affidavit in support of application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. is not permissible in view of the aforesaid judgements. This Court has gone through the aforesaid judgements and finds that the same relates to striking out of pleadings of Order VI, Rule 16 C.P.C. and it has no where been held that belated supplementary affidavit in support of application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. cannot be filed by the respondent. The judgement in the case of Sejal Glass Limited (supra) addresses the question whether partial rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. is permissible or not. It has no concern with the controversy before this Court where part rejection of plaint has not been prayed by respondent no.1/returned candidate. The judgment in the case of Madhav Prasad Aagarwal (supra) is also to the same effect. In the case of Chandrakant Uttam Chodanker (supra) the Apex Court has held that where there are defects in the copies of the election petition, it is curable and non vital in nature and therefore election petition cannot be dismissed at the threshold for non-compliance of Section 81 (3) of the R.P. Act. The case law is not relevant since this Court cannot consider the question of the defect in copies under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. because while considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. only averments in plaint are relevant and at this stage the Court cannot consider any evidence or enter into disputed questions of fact or law as held by this Court in the case of judgment of Apex Court Eldeco Housing and Industies Limited Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi and others, 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 1194. In the case of G.M. Siddeshwar (supra) the Apex Court found that there was already an affidavit in support of election petition and since there was no affidavit in support of allegation of corrupt practice, it held that a composite affidavit, which both supports pleadings in election petition and allegation of corrupt practice, will satisfy therequirements of Section 83 of R.P. Act. In the present case, as discussed above earlier, there is no affidavit in support of the election petition in Form 25 duly sworn before any notary or Oath Commissioner. Initially there was no allegation of corrupt practice adopted by respondent no.1/returned candidate, but later by way of amendment paragraph Nos. 10-A, 10-B and ground L were incorporated in the election petition but no affidavit in support of the aforesaid amended paragraphs and ground was filed by the election petitioner despite objection being raised by the other side about a month before final arguments on the above noted application. Therefore, judgement in the case of G.M. Siddeshwar (supra) will not help the election petitioner at all being distinguishable on facts. Reliance on the case of Ajay Arjun Singh (supra) also appears to be misconceived. In that case there was a verifying affidavit in support of election petition, but there was no affidavit in Form 25 in support of the allegation of corrupt practice, thus the Apex Court held that High Court should have permitted to election petitioner to file appropriate affidavit in Form 25 since the affidavit in Form 25 was defective. The Apex Court has also held that it is not a case of the appellant that he failed to cure the defect even on being pointed out so. In the present case the election petitioner has done the opposite. Even after being pointed out that there is no affidavit in Form 25 in support of election petition and also in support of allegations of corrupt practice, he has not filed any affidavit nor prayed before this Court for affording him opportunity to file the same. The facts of the case A. Manju (supra) are also different and irrelevant for deciding the present dispute. Relevant paragraphs Nos. 23 to 25 of the aforesaid judgement of case of A. Manju (supra) quoted herein below:-
23. However, we are not persuaded to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that the non-submission of Form 25 would lead to the dismissal of the election petition. We say so because, in our view, the observations made in Ponnala Lakshmaiah19 case which have received the imprimatur of the three Judges Bench in G.M. Siddeshwar20 case appear not to have been appreciated in the correct perspective. In fact, the G.M. Siddeshwar21 case has been cited by the learned Judge to dismiss the petition. If we look at the election petition, the prayer clause is followed by a verification. There is also a verifying affidavit in support of the election petition. Thus, factually it would not be appropriate to say that there is no affidavit in support of the petition, albeit not in Form 25. This was a curable defect and the learned Judge trying the election petition ought to have granted an opportunity to the appellant to file an affidavit in support of the petition in Form 25 in addition to the already existing affidavit filed with the election petition. In fact, a consideration of both the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to by the learned Judge, i.e. Ponnala Lakshmaiah22 as well as G.M. Siddeshwar 23, ought to have resulted in a conclusion that the correct ratio in view of these facts was to permit the appellant to cure this defect by filing an affidavit in the prescribed form.
24. The arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.1 were predicated on the distinction between the absence of an affidavit and a defective affidavit. This pre-supposes that for an opportunity of cure to be granted, there must be the submission of a Form 25 affidavit which may be defective. This would be very narrow reading of the provisions. Once there is an affidavit, albeit not in Form 25, the appropriate course would be to permit an affidavit to be filed in Form 25. We have to appreciate that the petition is at a threshold stage. It is not as if the appellant has failed to cure the defect even on being pointed out so. This is not a case where the filing of an affidavit now in Form 25 would grant an opportunity for embellishment as is sought to be urged on behalf of respondent No.1.
25. The appellant states the case clearly and in no uncertain terms with supporting material in the election petition. Whether the violation is made out by respondent no.1 or not would be a matter of trial but certainly not a matter to be shut out at the threshold.
11. A perusal of Section 83 of the Act aforesaid shows 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. In the present case, this Court has found that neither there was an affidavit as required under Form 25 at the time of filing of the election petition nor the same has been filed in support of the amended paragraph Nos. 10-A & 10-B and ground L of the election petition. The defect in the election petition was pointed out by the respondent no.1/returned candidate in supplementary affidavit dated 15.3.2024. The election petitioner neither cured the defect nor sought leave of this Court to rectify the same despite being mandatory provision as per Section 83 of the Act aforesaid. It was admitted by election petitioner in paragraph no.14 of the supplementary counter affidavit that the defect of not filing affidavit in Form 25 is curable defect and election petition cannot be dismissed on such technical ground. Therefore, it is clear that the election petitioner was fully aware that there is defect of non filing of affidavit in Form 25 in support of the pleadings in the election petition, but no effort was made to cure aforesaid the defect by the election petitioner. The Apex Court disapproved dismissal of election petition for non compliance of format of affidavit in the case of G.M. Siddeshwar Vs. Prasanna Kumar, AIR 2013 SC 1549, but here there is no defect in format of affidavit, rather the affidavit was not sworn at all before the Oath Commissioner by the election petitioner. In the absence of affidavit in support the pleadings of material facts, disobedience of mandate of Section 83(1)(a) of R.P. Act is clearly evident in the election petition. Further there is no affidavit in support of the pleadings of commission of corrupt practice adopted by the respondent no.1/returned candidate in Form 25 filed after incorporation of amended paragraph Nos. 10-A, 10-B and ground L in the election petition.
12. Issue nos. (i), (iii) & (iv) raised before this Court have already been answered above. The second issue is factual in the nature and contents of the copy of election petition sent to the petitioner by the office of this Court cannot be verified since a copy of the same has not been brought on record and it requires consideration of evidence which is beyond the scope of Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C.
13. Finally, the election petition does not discloses as to how the election result of the returned candidate has been materially affected on account of alleged non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 33(1) and 123(4) of R.P. Act and Rule 4(a) of Election Rules. Hence, the election petition is hit by Section 83(1)(a) of R.P. Act. The grounds in the election petition are vague and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of R.P. Act which provides that result of election of returned candidate should be proved to have been materially affected by non-compliance of provisions of the Constitution of India or R.P. Act or other Order or Rule made under the R.P. Act. There is no averment on record to prove that the election result dated 10.03.2022 in dispute of the constituency concerned was materially affected by any act of election petitioner. The only averment is that the respondent no.1/returned candidate committed fraud.
14. In view of the above consideration, application of respondent no.1/elected candidate noted above under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. is allowed. Election petition is rejected.
Order on Civil Misc. Application No.29 of 2023
1. In view of the order passed in Application No.7 of 2022 of date, no order is required to be passed on this application.
2. Application is dismissed as infructuous.
Order Date :- 02.7.202024
Ruchi Agrahari
