Praveen Kumar Srivastava vs Harsh Vardhan Bajpai
2025 Latest Caselaw 10711 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Praveen Kumar Srivastava vs Harsh Vardhan Bajpai on 17 September, 2025

Author: Siddhartha Varma

Bench: Siddhartha Varma

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 



 

 

 

 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
Election Petition No. - 15 of 2022
 

 
Praveen Kumar Srivastava
 

 
..Petitioners(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 
Harsh Vardhan Bajpai
 

 
..Respondents(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
 
:
 
In Person, Praveen Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)
 
:
 
Anup Kumar, Ayush Shanker, Jeetendra Singh, Mithilesh Kumar Rai
 

 

 
Court No. - 43
 
Reserved
 

 
HONBLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Civil Misc. Dismissal Application No.4 of 2022 :

(Under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 86(1) of Representation of People Act)

1. The instant election petition was filed by the election petitioner Praveen Kumar Srivastava for the relief that the election of the respondent - Harsh Vardhan Bajpai be declared null and void and be set-aside. Also, a prayer was made that fresh election be held for the constituency 262 Allahabad North Legislative Assembly, District Prayagraj.

2. Essentially the petitioner had challenged the election under section 100(a), (b) and (c) of 'The Representation of People Act, 1951' (hereinafter referred to as the "1951 Act"). With regard to the ground vis.-a-vis. the elected candidate that he was not qualified and that he had indulged in corrupt practices, paragraph nos.14 to 18 of the election petition were relevant. So far as the ground taken by the petitioner vis.-a-vis. section 100(c) of the 1951 Act i.e. the petitioner's nomination had been improperly rejected is concerned, the petitioner had concisely stated about the ground in paragraphs nos.7 to 13 of the election petition.

3. The elected candidate (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant") after having filed his written statement had filed the applications under Order VII Rule 11(a) and Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under section 86(1) of the 1951 Act and that application now is being adjudicated upon. In it he had stated that paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the election petition be struck off. Since the application for the rejection of the election petition as had been filed by the applicant is being taken up, the Court is referring to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant Sri Manish Goyal who was assisted by Sri Ravi Anand Agarwal. They are as follows :

(a) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the petitioner was neither an elector in the constituency 262 Allahabad North, nor was he an elected candidate as per the definition given in section 79(b) of the 1951 Act. With regard to the definition of "elector", learned counsel for the applicant referred to the explanation to section 81 of the 1951 Act wherein it was mentioned that 'an elector means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates, whether he had voted in such election or not. Learned counsel for the applicant relying upon a judgment of this Court in Tej Bahadur vs. Narendra Modi reported in 2019 SCC OnLine All 4780 and of the Supreme Court in the case of Tej Bahadur vs. Narendra Modi reported in 2021 (14) SCC 211 submitted that the election petitioner was neither a candidate nor an elector. Since learned counsel for the applicant has heavily relied upon paragraph 18 of the Supreme Court judgment, the same is being reproduced here as under :-

"18. The question that arises is whether the appellant can claim to have been a duly nominated candidate at the said election. The answer must be in the negative. It is a condition for a valid nomination of a person who has been dismissed from service, that the nomination paper must be accompanied by a certificate to the effect that the person seeking nomination has not been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the State. Section 33(3) of the Act itself provides the consequence of the absence of such certificate and that is that such a person "shall not be deemed to be duly nominated as a candidate". The law itself deems that such a person cannot be duly nominated."

(b) Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that when the election petitioner was taking a ground that the returned candidate had taken recourse to corrupt practices, then as per section 83(1) of the 1951 Act and as per Rule 94(A) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, an affidavit ought to have been sworn in Form-25. He, therefore, submits that when that was not sworn, the election petition itself becomes not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Supreme Court in Mairembam Prithviraj Alias Prithviraj Singh vs. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh reported in (2017) 2 SCC 487 had laid down that a false declaration relating to educational qualification cannot be condoned by saying that the declaration was not of substantial character. Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, stated that non-disclosure of educational qualification purportedly would amount to a corrupt practice and, therefore, as per Rule 94(A) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 read with the proviso to section 83(1) of the 1951 Act, the affidavit as provided in Form 25 compulsorily had to be there and in the event Form-25 was not sworn, the election petition would become not maintainable and would thus have to be rejected.

(c) Learned counsel for the applicant had further submitted that an election petition is not a suit at common law or an action in equity and that it is a purely statutory proceeding which is unknown to common law and that an election which was won by a candidate should not be lightly interfered with. He submitted that a petition, seeking interference in the election of an elected candidate, must strictly conform to the requirements of law. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that when on 8.2.2022, the election petitioner had been informed that Column 8(kha) of the Form-26 was not filled then he had to remove that defect and file a Form-26 afresh. He submits that thereafter the entire form ought to have been filled-in properly. Learned counsel for the applicant had taken the Court through the new Form-26 which had been filled and at pages 25 and 28 and it was shown that the election petitioner's signatures were not there. Also, it was shown at page 50 that strangely enough the name of one Praveen Kumar Pandey was given out and at page 53 where the name of the candidate had to be filled in, it was shown just as Praveen Kumar and not Praveen Kumar Srivastava.

(d) Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that when the earlier form which was annexed as Annexure-4 to the election petition was also filed then it also did not have the signature of the election petitioner at page 85. In that page, not only was the signature missing, but also the Oath Commissioner G. Ojha had not given the time of swearing.

(e) Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that if the communication which was sent by the election petitioner to the Chief Election Commissioner was seen then it would become apparent that he had grievances with one more candidate namely Smt. Ratan Srivastava and a lot of mala fide had been alleged against her; her husband and her daughter. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that despite the fact that a lot of allegations were there against the candidate by the name of Smt. Ratan Srivastava, she was not impleaded in the election petition and he submitted that as per section 82(a) of the 1951 Act if against any candidate against whom allegation of any corrupt practice was made in the petition then that candidate must also be arrayed as respondent. He, therefore, submitted that since Smt. Ratan Srivastava was not arrayed as a respondent in the election petition then, as per section 82(b) of the 1951 Act, the election petition was bad on account of 'mis-joinder of parties'

(f). Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of V. Narayanaswamy vs. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu reported in (2000) 2 SCC 294 wherein it was held that if there were lacuna of not stating material facts; material particulars; verification and affidavit etc. then the election petition was liable to be rejected under sections 81, 83(1)(c) and 86 of 1951 Act read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that most of the allegations made in the election petition were vague, unspecific and bereft of material fact and particulars and thus had to be rejected.

4. The election petitioner in response has submitted that with regard to the mistake as was pointed out vis.-a-vis. Form-26, even if there was an omission under Clause 8-Kha then it was a very minor mistake which could be ignored. The election petitioner submitted that the judgment of this Court and of the Supreme Court in the case of Tej Bahadur vs. Narendra Modi did not apply to the petitioner and that under section 100 of the 1951 Act if the nomination of the petitioner was wrongly rejected then he could have filed the election petition.

5. The election petitioner further submitted that Annexure-2 to the election petition was not the actual Form-26 which the petitioner intended to file but in fact Annexure-4 was the actual Form-26 which the petitioner intended to file. Still further, learned counsel for the election petitioner submitted that there was no requirement to file Form-25. Also, since no substantial relief was prayed for vis.-a-vis. the candidate Smt. Ratan Srivastava, it was not essential for the election petitioner to implead her.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the considered view that the election petition cannot continue and that the election petition deserves to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Also, the Court finds that there are such defects which would make the election petition not maintainable vis.-a-vis. the provisions of section 86(1) of 1951 Act.

7. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the election petitioner had no locus-standi, the Court is of the view that this submission holds no water. The election petitioner could have filed the election petition if he had considered that his nomination was wrongly rejected. However, the Court does find that since allegations of wrong educational qualifications had been alleged in paragraph nos.14 to 20 and giving of wrong educational qualifications would be considered as a corrupt practice, the Court is of the view that the election petition ought to have been accompanied by a Form-25. Also, the Court is of the view that even though the election petitioner had throughout stated that he was filing the true copy of his nomination as Annexure-4, the entire nomination paper was not filed but only Form-26 was filed. Still further, whether Annexure-2 or Annexure-4 is the correct copy of Form-26 could not be ascertained. The Court is of the view that both the copies have such shortcomings which could not be ignored. Definitely pages 25 and 28 of the election petition (i.e. Annexure-2) do not contain the signatures of the election petitioner and at page 50 of the election petition, the signature of the candidate was not given but the name of Praveen Kumar Pandey was given and this mistake was there in page 53 of Annexure-2 as well where only Praveen Kumar had been given as the name of the candidate. So far as Annexure-4 is concerned, if that is the correct copy then in that copy the affidavit at page 85 of the petition does not contain the signature of the election petitioner and also the time in the swearing clause of the Oath Commissioner was not given.

8. Still further, the Court is of the view that the election petitioner had alleged mala fide against Smt. Ratan Srivastava and as per section 82(b), if any allegation of corrupt practice against a candidate was made then that candidate had to be also arrayed as a party but in this case not only malice had been alleged against Smt. Ratan Srivastava but also corrupt practice had been alleged vis.-a-vis. her and, therefore, there was mis-joinder of parties when she was not arrayed as an opposite party.

9. The Supreme Court in V. Narayanswamy vs. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu reported in (2000) 2 SCC 294 has held that in the case when material facts were missing, the petition definitely had to be rejected at the outset but in the case when material particulars were missing, the petition could be cured subsequently. However, where in spite of having sufficient time to cure the defect in material particulars, the petitioner fails to cure the same then the petition had to be rejected.

10. The Supreme Court further in the case of Karim Uddin Barbhuiya vs. Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine 509 held that definitely when the material facts were not given then the election petition had to be rejected and when material particulars despite opportunity were not provided then also the election petition had to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

11. Under such circumstances, the Court is of the view that the election petition when is defective, cannot be entertained, it had, therefore, to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The application is, therefore, allowed. The plaint of the election petition is, accordingly, rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the election petition, thus, stands dismissed.

(Siddhartha Varma, J.)

September 17, 2025

GS