Bombay High Court
Gaikwad Varsha Eknath vs Asif Ali Siddiquie And 6 Ors on 5 February, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:1766
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPLICATION (L) NO. 34191 OF 2024
IN
ELECTION PETITION NO. 5 OF 2024.
Dr. Gaikwad Varsha Eknath ]
Female, aged about 49 years, ]
Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai ]
Having address at-Flat No.405, ]
C-Wing, Gold Field, Girnar Tower ]
Kala Killa, Sant Rohidas Marg, ]
Dharavi, Mumbai - 400 017. ] ...Applicant.
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Adv. Asif Ali Siddiquie ]
male, aged about 52 years, Indian Inhabitant of ]
Mumbai, having Address at - Flat No.1, Ground ]
Floor, Veena Building, CTS No.6437/10 ]
Nester Compound, Near Kalina Church Kalina, ]
Santacruz (E), Mumbai - 400 029. ]
Pan Card - ARRPS1153N ]
Aadhar No. 8139 9720 5414 ]
Email- [email protected] ]
Cell - 9869211753. ] ...Petitioner.
Versus
1. Dr. Gaikwad Varsha Eknath ]
Female, aged about 49 years, ]
Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai ]
Having address at-Flat No.405, C-Wing, ]
Gold Field, Girnar Tower Kala Killa, Sant ]
Rohidas Marg, Dharavi, Mumbai - 400 017. ]
2. The Election Commission of India ]
Having address at- Nirvachan Sadan Ashoka ]
Sairaj 1 of 32
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2025 22:25:42 :::
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
Road, New Delhi - 110 001. ]
3. The Chief Electoral Officer, ]
Through the State Election Commission ]
Having address at - General Administrative ]
Department, Mantralaya Extension, ]
th
Chamber No. 611, 6 Floor, Madam Cama ]
Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai - ]
400 032.
4. Suraj Kumar Gupta ]
th
Election Observer of 29 Mumbai, North ]
Central Parliamentary Constituency, to be ]
served through the Election Commission of ]
India ]
Having address at - Nirvachan Sadan ]
Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 100 001. ]
Email - [email protected] ]
5. Sonali Mule ]
The Returning Officer (Election) ]
th
29 Mumbai, North Central Parliamentary ]
Constituency, ]
Having address at - New Administrative ]
Building, 5th Floor, Near Chetna College, ]
Government Colony, Bandra (E), Mumbai - ]
400 051. ]
6. Sanjay Nerkar, ]
The Deputy Superintendent and ]
Competent Authority, L-Ward, Municipal ]
Corporation for Gr. Mumbai, North Central ]
Parliamentary Constituency, to be served ]
through - ]
Having Address at- New Administrative ]
Building, 5th Floor, Near Chetna College, ]
Government Colony, Bandra (E), Mumbai - ]
400 051. ]
7. The Senior Inspector of Police ]
Nirmal Nagar Police Station ]
Jay Prakash Road, Nirmal Nagar, Bandra ]
(E), Mumbai - 400 051. ] ...Respondents.
Sairaj 2 of 32
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2025 22:25:42 :::
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
------------
Mr. Tejas D. Deshmukh, Mr. Sagar Kursija, Mr. Ronak Utagikar and Mr.
Harishchandra Chavan for Applicant in AEP No. 34191/2024.
Mr. Moin Choudhari for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni, Mr. Shreyas R. Zarkar and Mr. Krushna Jaybhay for
Respondent No.2 (ECI).
Ms. Varsha Sawant, AGP for Respondent-State.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on : 6th January, 2025.
Pronounced on : 5th February, 2025.
Judgment :
1. The present Application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, "CPC"] read with Sections 81, 82 and
86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [for short, "R.P. Act
of 1951"] is at the instance of the returned candidate, whose election
is called in question by the present Election Petition seeking dismissal
of the Election Petition.
2. By the Election Petition, the Election of the returned candidate
from 29th Mumbai North Central Parliamentary Constituency in the
State of Maharashtra declared on 4 th June, 2024 is questioned under
Section 100(1)(b) and Section 100(1)(d)(ii)(iii) of the R.P. Act of 1951.
The allegation in Election Petition is the violation of Sections 123(1)(A)
(b)(ii), 123(1)(B)(b), 123(2)(b) and 123(6) read with Section 77, Section
123(7)(d) and Section 123(7)(h) of the R.P. Act of 1951.
Sairaj 3 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VII, RULE 11 OF CPC :
3. The Application seeks dismissal of the Petition on the ground of
non-disclosure of cause of action. It is contended that the Petition is
devoid of specific pleading that the Returned Candidate herself or her
election agent or with her consent has committed a corrupt practice.
The Petition does not plead and does not disclose how the alleged
corrupt practice has materially affected the result of election. It is
contended that the allegation of distribution of handbill/pamphlets
even if accepted does not amount to corrupt practice and varying
stands have been taken as regards the distribution of handbills. It is
further contended that the Petition does not disclose the name of the
informant as regards the alleged corrupt practices. It is further
pleaded that as regards the incidents of 19 th May, 2024 and 20th May,
2024, the pleadings are lacking in material particulars. It is further
pleaded that the complaint filed by the Petitioner with the Returning
Officer and Police is at variance with the pleadings in the Petition. The
Petition refers to video recordings and photographs which are not
annexed as exhibits and the Petition is not verified as per the
provisions of CPC.
4. The Application was contested by the Election Petitioner by filing
his Affidavit-in-reply. The Affidavit-in-reply merely denies the
contentions raised in Interim Application without specifically dealing
Sairaj 4 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
with the contentions and is as vague as can be.
SUBMISSIONS:
5. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for Applicant-
Returned Candidate has taken this Court through the pleadings in
Election Petition in detail and would submit that as far as the
distribution of handbills are concerned, Paragraph No. 6 merely states
through one voter, the petitioner was informed about the manifesto
without disclosing the name of the voter. Pointing out to Paragraph
Nos.10 and 11 of the Election Petition, he submits that the pleading
therein does not disclose violation of Section 127-A of the R.P.Act of
1951. He submits that the petition does not plead as to how the result
of election has been materially affected by alleged corrupt practices or
by non-compliance with the provisions of Section 127-A.
6. He submits that as far as the allegation of distribution of money
contained in Paragraph Nos.14 to 16 are concerned, the same are
bereft of any details. He submits that Paragraph No.23 of the Election
Petition speaks of complaint filed on 21 st May, 2024 with Nirmal Nagar
Police Station. Drawing attention to the said complaint, he submits
that the said complaint refers to an alleged incident of 20 th May, 2024
of distribution of money by sitting MLA of Bandra (East) presently in
Nationalist Congress Party (Ajit Pawar) in alliance with Bharatiya Janata
Party, which is contrary to pleading in Paragraph No.15 considering the
Sairaj 5 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
political affiliation. He submits that though the Election Petition refers
to video clip, there is no single photograph or video clip annexed to the
Petition. He submits that the complaint falsifies the pleading of
distribution of money.
7. He would further submit that the petition served upon
Respondent No.1 did not comply with the provision of Section 81(3) of
the R. P. Act, 1951 read with Appendix-II of the Bombay High Court
(Original Side) Rules, 1980 as there is no attestation of the petition
being a true copy of the Petition. He submits that there is defect in
verification clause as the instances were not to the personal
knowledge of the Election Petitioner. In support, he relies upon the
following decisions :-
Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone1
Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram2
M. Karunanidhi v. H. V. Hande3
Rajendra Singh v. Smt. Usha Rani4
Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal5
Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi6
Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haque Laskar7
1 (1980) 1 SCC 403.
2 (1974) 4 SCC 237.
3 (1983) 2 SCC 473.
4 (1984) 3 SCC 339.
5 (1982) 1 SCC 691.
6 (2001) 8 SCC 233.
7 2024 SCC OnLine SC 509.
Sairaj 6 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar8
Mahendra Tulshiram Bhingardive v. Anil Yeshwant Desai 9
Amol Gajanan Kirtikar v. Ravindra Dattaram Waikar10
8. Per contra Mr. Moin Chaudhari, learned counsel for Respondent-
original Petitioner would submit that as far as non-compliance of
Section 81(3) is concerned, the copy of petition would show that the
same has been attested by Petitioner on each and every page of the
Petition. He would further submit that petition was sought to be
served through the Office of Bailiff at the address given in the cause-
title and the Bailiff report shows that the same was returned
'unserved' as Respondent No.1 was not found on the said address, and
it was informed that premises was given on rental basis. He submits
that in the present Application, the verification clause gives the same
address which amounts to committing perjury. He submits that
thereafter, the petition was served through hand delivery along with
the covering letter of the petitioner. He submits that all evidence as
far as video clips are concerned will be produced at the time of leading
evidence, considering that disclosure of name of the source would
harm the informant. He submits that the pamphlet which was
distributed, which is annexed at Page No. 96 of the present Application
8 2023 SCC OnLine SC 573.
9 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3303.
10 Election Petition No. 6 of 2024 dtd. 19th December, 2024.
Sairaj 7 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
does not mention the number of pages and thus, there is violation of
Section 127-A. He submits that there is specific allegation of
distribution of money and thus, in Paragraph No.19, it is specifically
pleaded that scooty was found with cash of more than Rs.2,00,000/-
which is video-recorded by the Petitioner's representative, which
would be produced at the time of evidence. He submits that Section
123 defines corrupt practice which has been pleaded in the Petition. In
support, he relies upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Eldeco
Housing and Industries Ltd. vs. Ashok Vidyarthi11.
REASONS & ANALYSIS:
9. The cause-title of the Petition indicates that the election is
questioned under Section 100(1)(b), Section 100(1)(d)(ii)(iii) of R.P. Act,
1951. The violation, as per the cause title, is of Section 123(1)(A)(b)(ii),
123(1)(B)(b), 123(2)(b), 123(6) r/w Section 77, Section 123(7)(d) and
Section 123(7)(h) of R.P. Act, 1951. As the election of a democratically
elected person is sought to be questioned, it will be relevant to note
the observations of the Apex Court in in the case of Jyoti Basu v. Debi
Ghosal (supra), in Paragraph No. 8, which reads thus:
"8. A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is,
anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a
Common Law Right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So
is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an
election. Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right
to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory
creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory
11 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1033.
Sairaj 8 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
limitation. An Election petition is not an action at Common
Law, nor in equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which
neither the Common Law nor the principles of Equity apply
but only those rules which the statute makes and applies. It is
a special jurisdiction, and a special jurisdiction has always to
be exercised in accordance with the statutory creating it.
Concepts familiar to Common Law and Equity must remain
strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. A
Court has no right to resort to them on considerations of
alleged policy because policy in such matters as those,
relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the statute
lays down. In the trial of election disputes, Court is put in a
straight jacket. Thus the entire election process commencing
from the issuance of the notification calling upon a
constituency to elect a member or members right up to the
final resolution of the dispute, if any, concerning the election
is regulated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951,
different stages of the process being dealt with by different
provisions of the Act. There can be no election to Parliament
or the State Legislature except as provided by the
Representation of the People Act1951 and again, no such
election may be questioned except in the manner provided by
the Representation of the People Act. So the Representation
of the People Act has been held to be a complete and self
contained code within which must be found any rights
claimed in relation to an election or an election dispute. We
are concerned with an election dispute. The question is who
are parties to an election dispute and who may be impleaded
as parties to an election petition. We have already referred to
the Scheme of the Act. We have noticed the necessity to rid
ourselves of notions based on Common Law or Equity. We see
that we must seek an answer to the question within the four
corners of the statute. What does the Act say?"
10. The Apex Court has in categorical words held that out of the
statute, there is no right to elect, no right to get elected and no right
to dispute an election. In other words, there has to be strict compliance
with the statutory provisions failing which the consequence would be
dismissal of the Election Petition.
11. The allegations forming the foundation of the Election Petition
scattered at various places were required to be assembled to ascertain
Sairaj 9 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
the cause of action for questioning the election. Be that as it may.
When the pleadings are compacted, the allegations which emerge are
of corrupt practice of 'bribery' and 'undue influence' by distribution of
money for votes, procuring assistance for furtherance of prospects of
the candidate, violation of Section 77, influencing voters by false
promise of Congress Guarantee Card and contravention of Section
127A of R.P. Act, 1951.
12. Section 80 of the R. P. Act, 1951 provides that no election shall
be called in question except by an Election Petition presented in
accordance with the provisions of Part-VI. Section 81 deals with
'Presentation of petitions' and Section 83 deals with 'Contents of
Election Petition', and reads thus:-
"81. Presentation of petitions.--(1) An election petition
calling in question any election may be presented on one or
more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 100
and section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such
election or any elector within forty-five days from, but not
earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate, or
if there are more than one returned candidate at the election
and the dates of their election are different, the later of those
two dates.
Explanation.--In this sub-section, "elector" means a person
who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election
petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not.
(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many
copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the
petition, and every such copy shall be attested by the
petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the
petition."
"83. Contents of petition.--
Sairaj 10 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
(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."
13. Section 83 provides for the Petition to contain a concise
statement of material facts and where one of the grounds is of corrupt
practice, sub-section (2) further provides for the Petition to give full
particulars of the corrupt practice including the names of the person,
date and place of commission of each such practice. The relevant sub-
sections of Section 123 of R.P. Act, 1951 dealing with the acts deemed
to constitute corrupt practice, reads thus:
"123. Corrupt practices.--The following shall be deemed to
be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:--
(1) "Bribery", that is to say,--
(A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by
any other person with the consent of a candidate or his
election agent of any gratification, to any person whomsoever,
with the objects, directly or indirectly of inducing--
(a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or
not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election;
or
Sairaj 11 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
(b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an
election, or as a reward to--
(i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for
having withdrawn or not having withdrawn his
candidature; or
(ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from
voting;
(B) the receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gratification,
whether as a motive or a reward--
(a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for
withdrawing or not withdrawing from being, a
candidate; or
(b) by any person whomsoever for himself or any other
person for voting or refraining from voting, or
inducing or attempting to induce any elector to vote
or refrain from voting, or any candidate to withdraw
or not to withdraw his candidature.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause the term
"gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or
gratifications estimable in money and it includes all forms of
entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but it
does not include the payment of any expenses bona fide
incurred at, or for the purpose of, any election and duly
entered in the account of election expenses referred to in
section 78.
(2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect
interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the
candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the
consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the free
exercise of any electoral right:
Provided that--
(a) without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of
this clause any such person as is referred to therein who
--
(i) threatens any candidate or any elector, or any person
in whom a candidate or an elector is interested, with
injury of any kind including social ostracism and ex-
communication or expulsion from any caste or
community; or
(ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an
elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is
interested, will become or will be rendered an object
of divine displeasure or spiritual censure, shall be
deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the
electoral right of such candidate or elector within
the meaning of this clause;
(b) a declaration of public policy, or a promise of public
Sairaj 12 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without
intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be
deemed to be interference within the meaning of this
clause.
(3).....
(3-A) ......
(3-B) .....
(4) ......
(5) ........
(6) The incurring or authorizing of expenditure in
contravention of section 77.
(7) The obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to
obtain or procure by a candidate or his agent or, by any other
person [with the consent of a candidate or his election agent],
any assistance (other than the giving of vote) for the
furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election,
from any person whether or not in the service of the
Government and belonging to any of the following classes,
namely:--
(a) gazetted officers;
(b) stipendiary judges and magistrates;
(c) members of the armed forces of the Union;
(d) members of the police forces;
(e) excise officers;
(f) revenue officers other than village revenue
officers known as lambardars, malguzars, patels,
deshmukhs or by any other name, whose duty is
to collect land revenue and who are remunerated
by a share of, or commission on, the amount of
land revenue collected by them but who do not
discharge any police functions; and
(g) such other class of persons in the service of the
Government as may be prescribed:
(h) class of persons in the service of a local
authority, university, government company or
institution or concern or undertaking appointed
or deputed by the Election Commission in
connection with the conduct of the elections:
Provided that where any person, in the service of the
Government and belonging to any of the classes aforesaid, in
the discharge or purported discharge of his official duty,
makes any arrangements or provides any facilities or does any
other act or thing, for, to, or in relation to, any candidate or his
agent or any other person acting with the consent of /the
candidate or his election agent (whether by reason of the
office held by the candidate or for any other reason), such
arrangements, facilities or act or thing shall not be deemed to
be assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of that
Sairaj 13 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
candidate's election.
(8)....
ABSENCE OF MATERIAL FACTS:
14. Firstly, dealing with allegations of corrupt practice under sub-
sections (1) and (2) of Section 123, i.e. of bribery and undue influence,
the gist of corrupt practice of bribery is an act of giving any gift, offer
or promise by a candidate, or his agent, or any other person with
consent of a candidate or his election agent in order to induce an
elector to vote for the candidate and undue influence is any direct
interference with the free exercise of any electoral right.
15. In order to constitute a charge of bribery, the material fact to be
pleaded would be primary facts pleading the commission of the act of
giving of any gift, offer or promise or the receiving of any gratification
with the purpose of inducing the voter to vote for a particular
candidate, from which the ingredients of bribery and undue influence
can be readily inferred and if established would entitle the Petitioner
to the relief. As to what constitute material facts was considered by
Apex Court in Udhav Singh vs Madhav Rao Scindia 12, where the Apex
Court held as under:
"All the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a
party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his
defence, are "material facts". In the context of a charge of
corrupt practice, "material facts" would mean all the basic
facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt
12 (1977) 1 SCC 511.
Sairaj 14 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
practice alleged, which the petitioner is bound to substantiate
before he can succeed on that charge. Whether in an election-
petition, a particular fact is material or not, and as such
required to be pleaded is a question which depends on the
nature of the charge levelled, the ground relied upon and the
special circumstances of the case. In short, all those facts
which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete
cause of action, are "material facts" which must be pleaded
and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to
disobedience of the mandate of sec. 83(1) (a)."
16. In Hari Shanker Jain vs Sonia Gandhi (supra), the Apex Court
held in Paragraph No. 23 as under:
"23. Section 83(1)(a) of RPA, 1951 mandates that an election
petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts
on which the petitioner relies. By a series of decisions of this
Court, it is well-settled that the material facts required to be
stated are those facts which can be considered as materials
supporting the allegations made. In other words, they must be
such facts as would afford a basis for the allegations made in
the petition and would constitute the cause of action as
understood in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The
expression cause of action has been compendiously defined to
mean every fact which it 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 understand the case he
will have to meet. [See Samant N. Balakrishna etc. v. Geroge
Fernandez - (1969) 3 SCR 603, Jitender Bahadur Singh v. Krishna
Behari - (1969) 2 SCC 433]. Merely quoting the words of the
Section like chanting of a mantra 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 Vs. P.J. Francis [(1999) 3 SCC
737], this 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."
17. Perusal of the pleadings in the present case would disclose that
Sairaj 15 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
they are as vague as can be. As regards the allegation of 'bribery' and
'undue influence', it is pleaded in Paragraph No. 14 that the Petitioner
got information from reliable source that one Zeeshan Siddiqui-sitting
M.L.A. of Indian National Congress at the instance of Respondent No. 1
indulged in corrupt practice of purchasing votes. It is further pleaded
that as the voters from slum area had received gratification, it was
difficult to follow the same. In Paragraph No. 15, it is pleaded that on
19th May, 2024, the Petitioner's source noticed that Mr. Siddiqui was
sitting in a car and issuing instructions to his henchmen. In Paragraph
No. 17, it is pleaded that the Petitioner's source noticed one henchman
standing at Kherwadi signal and followed him. In paragraph 18, it is
pleaded that the Petitioner's source informed the patrolling constable
who took custody of the scooty. In Paragraph No. 19, it is pleaded that
the election officer arrived, and after taking search of the scooty found
Rs. 2,00,000/- and thereafter, the police arrived and disbursed the
crowd.
18. As the allegation was about distribution of money for purchase
of votes, the basic facts from which ingredients of bribery and undue
influence could be inferred was the manner in which the distribution of
money had taken place, the place where the act was committed, and
the facts to establish the nexus of Respondent No. 1 with the alleged
distribution of money. The pleadings attribute the act of bribery to Mr.
Sairaj 16 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
Siddiqui and vague, unconnected allegations as regards the
distribution of money by said Mr. Siddiqui belonging to the same
political party with that of returned candidate and the alleged finding
of cash in the scooty are made. It is not sufficient to make a generalised
statement about the distribution of money for purchase of votes
without pleading the material facts in the Petition to justify proceeding
for trial of the Petition. To put it simply, the pleadings must on the
face demonstrate a cause of action, which is lacking in present Petition.
19. Coming to the allegation of corrupt practice under Section
123(7) of R.P. Act, 1951, the pleading in Paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 is
that the constable and the election officer took custody of the scooty
and found cash of Rs 2,00,000/. Even accepting the said allegation, it
must be pleaded that the cash found in the scooty belonged to
Respondent No. 1 and in order to further her prospects in the election,
the police and the election officer did not take any further steps.
There are no details of the registration number of the scooty, the name
of election officer who allegedly took charge of the scooty and the
date and place where the said incident occurred. There is not even an
averment to suggest that the money allegedly recovered from the
scooty belonged to Respondent No. 1 or was for the purpose of
distribution to the voters at the instance of Respondent No 1.
20. The other ground on which the election has been questioned is
Sairaj 17 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
non compliance with Section 127-A of R.P. Act, 1951. Section 127-A of
the R.P. Act, 1951, reads as under:
"127-A. Restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters,
etc.--
(1) No person shall print or publish, or cause to be printed or
published, any election pamphlet or poster which does not
bear on its face the names and addresses of the printer and
the publisher thereof.
(2) No person shall print or cause to be printed any election
pamphlet or poster--
(a) unless a declaration as to the identity of the publisher
thereof, signed by him and attested by two persons to whom
he is personally known, is delivered by him to the printer in
duplicate; and
(b) unless, within a reasonable time after the printing of the
document, one copy of the declaration is sent by the printer,
together with one copy of the document,--
(i) where it is printed in the capital of the State, to the
chief electoral officer; and
(ii) in any other case, to the district magistrate of the
district in which it is printed.
(3) For the purposes of this section,--
(a) any process for multiplying copies of a document, other
than copying it by hand, shall be deemed to be printing and
the expression "printer" shall be construed accordingly; and
(b)"election pamphlet or poster" means any printed pamphlet,
hand-bill or other document distributed for the purpose of
promoting or prejudicing the election of a candidate or group
of candidates or any placard or poster having reference to an
election, but does not include any hand-bill, placard or poster
merely announcing the date, time, place and other particulars
of an election meeting or routine instructions to election
agents or workers.
(4) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with
both."
21. The said provision would indicate restriction is placed on
Sairaj 18 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
printing of pamphlets and posters only where the same does not bear
on its face, the name and address of the printer and publisher and
unless a declaration as to identity of the publisher is delivered by the
person who sees the election pamphlet to the printer in duplicate, and
within a reasonable time, the copy of the declaration and unless within
the reasonable time of publishing of the document, one copy of the
document is sent to the printer together with the copy of the
document to the Chief Electoral Officer or the District Magistrate of
the District. It was, therefore, necessary before it could be said that
there was violation of provisions of Section 127-A that the pleadings
make out a clear case of the ingredients of Section 127-A not being
satisfied in the present case.
22. The precise allegations set out in Petition as regards violation
of Section 127-A can be found in Paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 10
reproduced herein below:
"6. The petitioner states that the Respondent No.1, a
candidate sponsored by Indian National Congress, being
already have symbol of election "palm", after the scrutiny of
nomination papers, started election campaign and in the
process, organized various corner meeting. On 05/05/2024 at
about 9.30 p.m. in Pathar Nagar Vicinity, near Garib Nawaz
Masjid, at Bharat Nagar Slum, Bandra (East), Mumbai, at the
instance of the Respondent No.1 handbill/pamphlet
containing election manifesto of the Indian National Congress
distributed amongst the corner meeting attendee.
Accordingly, through the one voter part of the corner meeting
attendee the Petitioner was informed about the manifesto
and got in possession of the Handbill/Pamphlets. Upon
perusal, it was found that the Handbill/pamphlets containing
election manifesto of the Indian National Congress printed
Sairaj 19 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
both side English as well as Hindi, both the side below printed
as "Published by:All India Congress Committee" and similarly
on the Hindi side on the right corner written in Hindi as
"Prakashit: All India Congress Committee". Hereto annexed
and market EXHIBIT-"B" is a copy of handbill pamphlet
containing manifesto of Indian National Congress distributed
by the Respondent No.1 in the corner meeting in Pathar Nagar
Vicinity, near Garib Nawaz Masjid, at Bharat Nagar, Bandra
(East), Mumbai.
7. The Petitioner submits that in the pamphlet/handbill there
was a note on the below right side of the Bill 'Published by All
India Congress Committee'. The petitioner thereafter
collected pamphlet/handbill containing manifesto of Indian
National Congress distributed at the instance of Respondent
No.1 in other Assembly Constitutency i.e. 168-Chandivali, 167-
Vile Parle, 175-Kalina, 176-Vandre East, 177-Vandre west and
174-Kurla and compared the same with each other and found
the same genuine and distributed by and at the instance of
Respondent No.1. A sponsored candidate of Indian National
Congress.
10. The Petitioner states that on 11/05/2024 vide email the
Petitioner received a reply whereby no any finding given in
context to the petitioner Application dated 10/5/2024 r/w
11/5/2024 with regard to grant to permission to get printed
the handbills/pamphlets with similar remark of Indian National
Congress, sponsored candidate Dr. Gaikwad Varsha Eknath,
however reply sent by the Dy. Superintendent and Competent
Authority, L Ward, MCGM, one window scheme, 29 th North
Central Constituency, contended and contained reference of
the extract of handbook of candidate 2023 with Ref. To
Section 127A of the Representation of People Act, 1951. the
contents of the reply was partly in English and partly in
Marathi, there for the letter re-typed English part in English
with Marathi contents translated in English. Hereto annexed
and market EXHIBIT-"E" is a copy of reply dated 11/05/2024
sent by Respondent No. 6 at the instance of Returning Officer
referring the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951
and extract of handbook for candidates and EXHIBIT-"E-1"is a
true English translated copy of reply dated 11/05/2024 sent by
Respondent No.6 at the instance of Returning Officer along
with re-typed of English contents for the convenient."
23. The pleadings are that the handbills/pamphlets have been
distributed. In what manner the distribution of handbills constitutes
violation of Section 127-A has not been pleaded. Although, one of the
Sairaj 20 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
pamphlet has been annexed to the petition, the pleadings do not in any
manner connect the said pamphlet to the returned candidate. It is not
enough to state that the pamphlet has been distributed at the instance
of Respondent No.1 without pleading the material facts to show
violation of Section 127A of the R. P. Act, 1951.
24. As regards the allegation of distribution of Congress Guarantee
Card, in Paragraph No. 36, it is pleaded that the Petitioner's office clerk
was handed over 10 copies of photographs of voters holding "Congress
Guarantee Card" with their election card and amounts to promise card
to secure maximum vote to win the election. The Petition does not
plead as to how the alleged guarantee card amounts to undue
influence under Section 123(2) of R.P. Act, 1951. The alleged guarantee
card is not annexed to the Petition and the content of the guarantee
card has not been pleaded in the Petition to demonstrate undue
influence which the alleged guarantee card would have upon the voter.
25. As regards the violation of Section 77 of R.P. Act, 1951, the
pleading in Paragraph No. 28 connects the alleged distribution of
money with the contravention of Section 77 of R.P. Act, 1951. As the
allegation of corrupt practice itself is devoid of material facts, the
alleged contravention of Section 77 being dependent on the alleged
distribution of money does not disclose a cause of action.
26. The importance of setting out the material fact to constitute a
Sairaj 21 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
complete cause of action was summed up by Apex Court in Kanimozhi
Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar (supra) in Paragraph No.28 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 judgment 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."
27. The Apex Court has held that the Election Petition can be
Sairaj 22 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
summarily dismissed on the omission of single material fact leading to
an incomplete cause of action. If the legal position is applied to the
facts of the present case, as far as the allegation of corrupt practice is
concerned, the pleadings being bereft of all material facts does not
disclose cause of action.
NON-SATISFACTION OF GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 1OO:
28. An Election Petition can be presented only on one or more
grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 or Section 101 of
R.P. Act, 1951. Section 100 of R.P. Act, 1951 deals with the ground of
declaring the election as void, and reads thus:-
"100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.--
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), if the High
Court is of opinion--
(a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was
not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat
under the Constitution or this Act or the Government of Union
Territories Act, 1963; or
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a
returned candidate or his election agent or by any other
person with the consent of a returned candidate or his
election agent; or
(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or
(d) that the result of the election, insofar as it concerns a
returned candidate, has been materially affected--
(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of
the returned candidate by an agent other than his election
agent, or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any
vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or
(iv) by any non--compliance with the provisions of the
Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made
under this Act,
the High Court shall declare the election of the returned
candidate to be void.
Sairaj 23 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
(2) If in the opinion of the High Court, a returned candidate
has been guilty by an agent other than his election agent, of
any corrupt practice but the High Court is satisfied--
(a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the
election by the candidate or his election agent, and every
such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the
orders, and without the consent, of the candidate or his
election agent;
(c) that the candidate and his election agent took all
reasonable means for preventing the commission of
corrupt practices at the election; and
(d) that in all other respects the election was free from any
corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his
agents,
then the High Court may decide that the election of the
returned candidate is not void.
29. Section 100(1)(d)(b) provides that the election can be declared
void if it is found that the results of election has been materially
affected by the corrupt practice, committed in interest of the returned
candidate or by non-compliance of the provisions.
30. There are no averments in the Petition as to the manner in which
the corrupt practice or the non-compliance of Section 127A has
materially affected the result of the election. In Paragraph No. 26 of
the Election Petition, the only averment as regards Section 100(1)(d),
which can be found as under:
"The Respondent No.1 under the guidance through her
henchmen while campaign and public gathering distributed
handbills/pamphlet which was totally contrary to Sec.127(A) of
The Representation of People Act, 1951 r/w. Handbook for
Candidate-2023 thus the Respondent No.1 committed act
covered U/Sec.100(1)(d)(iv) of The Representation of People
Act, 1951 in view of the definition of the section there is
material affected due to indulgence in act of distributing and
getting printed handbills/pamphlet which is covered under the
provision as stated herein above."
Sairaj 24 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
31. The reproduction of words "materially affected" is not sufficient
for the purpose of satisfying Section 100(1)(d) and strict compliance of
provisions of the R. P. Act, 1951 is mandatory for exercising the
statutory remedy.
32. In the case of Mangani Lal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari 13, the
Apex Court has held in Paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 12 as under:-
"10. A reading of the above provision with Section 83 of the
1951 Act leaves no manner of doubt that where a returned
candidate is alleged to be guilty of non-compliance with the
provisions of the Constitution or the 1951 Act or any rules or
orders made thereunder and his election is sought to be
declared void on such ground, it is essential for the election
petitioner to aver by pleading material facts that the result of
the election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate
has been materially affected by such breach or non-
observance. If the election petition goes to trial then the
election petitioner has also to prove the charge of breach or
non-compliance as well as establish that the result of the
election has been materially affected. It is only on the basis of
such pleading and proof that the Court may be in a position to
form opinion and record a finding that breach or non-
compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the 1951
Act or any rules or orders made thereunder has materially
affected the result of the election before the election of the
returned candidate could be declared void.
11. A mere non-compliance or breach of the Constitution or
the statutory provisions noticed above, by itself, does not
result in invalidating the election of a returned candidate
under Section 100(1)(d)(iv). The sine qua non for declaring the
election of a returned candidate to be void on the ground
under clause (iv) of Section 100(1)(d) is further proof of the
fact that such breach or non-observance has resulted in
materially affecting the result of the returned candidate. In
other words, the violation or breach or non-observation or
non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the
1951 Act or the rules or the orders made thereunder, by itself,
does not render the election of a returned candidate void
Section 100(1)(d)(iv). For the election petitioner to succeed on
such ground viz. Section 100(1)(d)(iv), he has not only to plead
13 (2012) 3 SCC 314.
Sairaj 25 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
and prove the ground but also that the result of the election
insofar as it concerned the returned candidate has been
materially affected. The view that we have taken finds support
from the three decisions of this Court in: (1) Jabar Singh v.
Genda Lal [AIR 1964 SC 1200 : (1964) 6 SCR 54] ; (2) L.R.
Shivaramagowda v. T.M. Chandrashekar [(1999) 1 SCC 666]; and
(3) Uma Ballav Rath v. Maheshwar Mohanty [(1999) 3 SCC 357].
(emphasis supplied)
12. Although the impugned judgment runs into 30 pages, but
unfortunately it does not reflect any consideration on the
most vital aspect as to whether the non-disclosure of the
information concerning the appellant's first wife and the
dependent children born from that wedlock and their assets
and liabilities has materially affected the result of the election
insofar as it concerned the returned candidate. As a matter of
fact, in the entire election petition there is no pleading at all
that the suppression of the information by the returned
candidate in the affidavit filed along with the nomination
papers with regard to his first wife and dependent children
from her and non-disclosure of their assets and liabilities has
materially affected the result of the election. There is no issue
framed in this regard nor is there any evidence let in by the
election petitioner. The High Court has also not formed any
opinion on this aspect."
33. In Karim Uddin Barbhuiya v. Aminul Haq Laskar (supra), the
Apex Court has held in Paragraph Nos.13, 14 , 15, 22 and 24 as under:-
"13. It hardly needs to be reiterated that in an Election
Petition, pleadings have to be precise, specific and
unambiguous, and if the Election Petition does not disclose a
cause of action, it is liable to be dismissed in limine. It may also
be noted that the cause of action in questioning the validity of
election must relate to the grounds specified in Section 100 of
the RP Act. As held in Bhagwati Prasad Dixit 'Ghorewala' vs.
Rajeev Gandhi4 and in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vs. Rajiv
Gandhi, if the allegations contained in the petition do not set
out the grounds as contemplated by Section 100 and do not
conform to the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act,
the pleadings are liable to be struck off and the Election
Petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC.
14. A beneficial reference of the decision in case of Laxmi
Narayan Nayak vs. Ramratan Chaturvedi and Others6 be also
made, wherein this Court upon review of the earlier decisions,
laid down following principles applicable to election cases
involving corrupt practices:-
Sairaj 26 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
"5. This Court in a catena of decisions has laid down the
principles as to the nature of pleadings in election cases,
the sum and substance of which being:
(1) The pleadings of the election petitioner in his petition
should be absolutely precise and clear containing all
necessary details and particulars as required by law vide
Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi [1987
Supp SCC 93] and Kona Prabhakara Rao v. M. Seshagiri
Rao [(1982) 1 SCC 442] .
(2) The allegations in the election petition should not be
vague, general in nature or lacking of materials or
frivolous or vexatious because the court is empowered at
any stage of the proceedings to strike down or delete
pleadings which are suffering from such vices as not
raising any triable issue vide Manphul Singh v. Surinder
Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 599: (1974) 1 SCR 52], Kona
Prabhakara Rao v. M. Seshagiri Rao [(1982) 1 SCC 442] and
Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi [1987
Supp SCC 93].
(3) The evidence adduced in support of the pleadings
should be of such nature leading to an irresistible
conclusion or unimpeachable result that the allegations
made, have been committed rendering the election void
under Section 100 vide Jumuna Prasad Mukhariya v.
Lachhi Ram [(1954) 2 SCC 306: (1955) 1 SCR 608 : AIR
1954 SC 686] and Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed [(1974)
2 SCC 660].
(4) The evidence produced before the court in support of
the pleadings must be clear, cogent, satisfactory,
credible and positive and also should stand the test of
strict and scrupulous scrutiny vide Ram Sharan Yadav v.
Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh [(1984) 4 SCC 649] .
(5) It is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence
at its face value without looking for assurances for some
surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents vide
Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed [(1974) 2 SCC 660],
M. Narayana Rao v. G. Venkata Reddy [(1977) 1 SCC 771:
(1977) 1 SCR 490], Lakshmi Raman Acharya v. Chandan
Singh [(1977) 1 SCC 423 : (1977) 2 SCR 412] and Ramji
Prasad Singh v. Ram Bilas Jha [(1977) 1 SCC 260].
(6) The onus of proof of the allegations made in the
election petition is undoubtedly on the person who
assails an election which has been concluded vide Rahim
Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed [(1974) 2 SCC 660], Mohan Singh
v. Bhanwarlal [(1964) 5 SCR 12: AIR 1964 SC 1366] and
Ramji Prasad Singh v. Ram Bilas Jha [(1977) 1 SCC 260]."
15. The legal position with regard to the non-compliance of
the requirement of Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act and the
Sairaj 27 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
rejection of Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11, CPC has
also been regurgitated recently by this Court in case of
Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs. A. Santhana Kumar (supra): -
"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 judgment
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."
Sairaj 28 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
22. So far as the ground contained in clause (d) of Section
100(1) of the Act, with regard to improper acceptance of the
nomination of the Appellant is concerned, there is not a single
averment made in the Election Petition as to how the result of
the election, in so far as the appellant was concerned, was
materially affected by improper acceptance of his nomination,
so as to constitute a cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(i)
of the Act. Though it is true that the Election Petitioner is not
required to state as to how corrupt practice had materially
affected the result of the election, nonetheless it is
mandatory to state when the clause (d)(i) of Section 100(1) is
invoked as to how the result of election was materially
affected by improper acceptance of the nomination form of
the Appellant.
24. As stated earlier, in Election Petition, the pleadings have to
be precise, specific and unambiguous. If the allegations
contained in Election Petition do not set out grounds as
contemplated in Section 100 and do not conform to the
requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, the Election
Petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of
CPC. An 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 Election petitioner
relies for establishing a cause of action, would entail rejection
of Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section
83 and 87 of the RP Act."
NON-COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 81(3):
34. The allegation of corrupt practice is sought to be substantiated
by pleading that there are mobile recordings by the Petitioner's
informant which would be produced at the time of evidence. These
recordings are integral part of the pleadings of corrupt practice and
were required to be annexed to the Petition to enable the Respondent
No 1 to deal with the same. The Apex Court in M. Karunanidhi vs H.V.
Hande (supra) held in Paragraph Nos. 41 and 42 as under:
"41. It is obvious that photograph was a part of the averment
contained in paragraph 18 (b). In the absence of the
photograph the averment contained in paragraph 18 (b) would
Sairaj 29 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
be incomplete. The photograph referred to in paragraph 18 (b)
was therefore an integral part of the election petition. It
follows that there was total non-compliance with the
requirements of sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act by
failure to serve the appellant with a copy of the election
petition. In Ch. Subbarao's case, the Court held that if there is a
total and complete non-compliance with the provisions of sub-
section (3) of Section 81, the election petition could not be
treated an "election petition presented in accordance with the
provisions of this Part" within the meaning of Section 80 of
the Act. Merely alleging that the appellant had put up fancy
banners would be of no avail unless there was a description of
the banner itself together with the slogan.
42. The conclusion is irresistible that the words "copies
thereof" in sub-section (3) of Section 81 read in the context of
sub-section (2) of Section 83 must necessarily refer not only to
the election petition proper but also to schedules or
annexures thereto containing particulars of any corrupt
practice alleged therein. That being so, we are constrained to
reverse the judgment of the High Court insofar as it holds that
the photograph of the fancy banner adverted to in paragraph
18 (b) could not be treated to be an integral part of the
election petition but was merely a piece of evidence as to the
nature and type of fancy banner erected by the appellant and
therefore failure to supply a copy of the photograph to the
appellant did not amount to a violation of the provisions of
sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act."
35. Failure to supply the copy of the mobile recording to the
Respondent No. 1 amounts to non-compliance of sub-section (3) of
Section 81 of the R.P. Act, 1951 and therefore, the Election Petition is
liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1) of R.P. Act of 1951.
36. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in
Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd (supra) that for invoking Order VII,
Rule 11 only averments in the plaint would be relevant. In the present
case, the averments have been looked into for purpose of ascertaining
whether the material facts are pleaded to sustain the election petition.
Sairaj 30 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
CONCLUSION:
37. The pleadings in the Petition fails to set out the mandatory
material facts and are completely vague. Substantial pleading is based
on alleged information received by the Petitioner from his source,
whose name has not been disclosed and the Petition is verified as true
to his knowledge without disclosing the source. The reading of entire
plaint in meaningful manner would leave no manner of doubt that the
petition fails to disclose the cause of action for questioning the
election on the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100.
Further, the non-supply of mobile recording to Respondent No. 1
though referred to in the Petition, amounts to non compliance with
Section 81(3) leading to dismissal of the Petition under Section 86(1) of
R.P. Act of 1951.
38. In the case of Liverpool & London S. P. and I Association Ltd. vs.
M.V. Sea Success I14, the Apex Court though not in the context of
Election Petition, had held that the cause of action is a bundle of facts
which are required to be pleaded and proved for the purpose of
obtaining relief claimed in the suit.
39. Considering that in the Election Petition, the pleadings have to
be specific, precise and unambiguous as provided by Section 83 of the
R. P. Act, 1951, where the Election Petition even upon holistic reading
14 (2004) 9 SCC 512.
Sairaj 31 of 32
Application (L) No.34191 of 2024 in EP 5-2024 (f).doc
of the entire plaint does not disclose cause of action, the same is liable
to be dismissed. Upon so reading of the plaint, the pleadings does not
disclose any cause of action under sub-section (1) of Section 100 to
maintain the Election Petition and is thus, liable to be rejected under
Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC and is accordingly, rejected.
40. In light of the above discussion, the Interim Application is
allowed. Election Petition stands dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(a)
of CPC.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sairaj 32 of 32
