[Cites 30, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Hiralal Sankhwar @ Hiralal Mahato vs Chandradeo Mahato on 3 February, 2026
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2026:JHHC:2731
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
E.P. No. 01 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 12722 of 2025
------
Hiralal Sankhwar @ Hiralal Mahato, son of Late Bistu Mahato, resident
Village Tola Konartand, Bhikharajpur Post and P.S.-Baliapur, District-
Dhanbad .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
Chandradeo Mahato, son of Sri Anand Mahato, resident of Village-Baradaha,
Post-Baliapur, P.S. Baliapur, District-Dhanbad
.... .... .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
Mr. Shiwam Lath, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Samarendra, Advocate
Mr. Parth Sarthi, Advocate
Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Advocate
------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. ON: 19.01.2026. PRONOUNCED ON: 03.02.2026.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
respondent on the interlocutory application for rejection of the election
petition.
2. Instant interlocutory application is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 86(1) of Representation of
People Act, 1951 for rejection of plaint in this election petition.
3. The present election petition is filed under Sections 80 and 81 read with
Section 100 (1) (a) (b) (d) (i) (iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951
(herein after referred to as Act, 1951) challenging the validity of the election of
the respondent- Chandradeo Mahato, returned candidate from 38, Sindri
Assembly Constituency to the Jharkhand State Legislative Assembly in the
election held in October/November, 2024. Respondent was elected with a total
1,05,136 votes, whereas total number of votes cast in favour of the runner was
1,01,688, who was the official candidate of BJP. Election Petitioner was the
official candidate of All India Forward Bloc in whose favour 737 votes were
cast in the election.
2026:JHHC:2731
4. Challenge to the validity of the election, is mainly on the following
grounds : -
a. Deposit of security money of Rs.10,000/- was not made in accordance
with the Section 34(2) of Act, 1951 as it was not made with the Returning
Officer concerned, nor in the Government treasury, but with the Nazir,
who cannot be said to be functionary notified under the Act, 1951.
b. Respondent submitted his nomination papers in four sets along with the
required affidavit. In the affidavit sworn in the office of Shri Ram Prasad
Mahato, Notary Public, Dhanbad, the required prescribed stamps were
not affixed on the affidavit. The Advocate Welfare Fund Ticket of ₹30 as
well as Advocate Clerk Stamp of ₹5 were not affixed. Out of the four sets
of affidavits filed along with the nomination papers, only two were in
original, whereas other two were xerox copy of the original affidavit.
c. Voters had been misled during the election campaign as the respondent
had claimed himself to be the candidate of भारतीय कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी (माले )
(CPI ML), whereas he had filed the nomination paper as official
candidate of Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation).
Objection is to the omission of word 'liberation' in the election
pamphlets.
d. It is also averred in the election petition that declaration with regard to
conviction in pending criminal cases was not as per the Act, 1951. As per
the instruction and guidelines, all the candidates have to declare about
their conviction and pending criminal cases in the nomination paper and
also the details thereof was to be published in two leading newspapers.
This was not complied with, and the publication with regard to it, made
in the daily newspaper, Hindustan (Hindi) was misleading.
5. The grounds of rejection of plaint taken on behalf of the respondent can
be summed up as under:
a. Averments made in the election petition, do not disclose a cause
of action for declaring the election to be invalid.
b. There is failure on the part of the election petitioner to comply
with mandatory requirement of Sections 81, 82 and 83 of the Act, 1951. It
is contended that there is non-compliance to Section 81(3) of the Act, 1951
2026:JHHC:2731
as the true copy of the election petition was not served upon the
respondent. The copy which has been given as a xerox copy, is not duly
attested as provided under Section 86 of the Act, 1951. Non-compliance of
Section 83 will by itself entail a rejection of election petition, as Section 83
is couched in mandatory terms by use of "shall" in the said provision.
This is further buttressed by Rule 94 (a) of the Conduct of Election Rules,
1961. It is argued that election petition cannot be entertained in a fanciful
manner, unless and until averments made disclose the material facts to
hold an election as null and void, the same cannot be entertained. These
principles have been enunciated in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi Vs. A.
Santhana Kumar reported in AIR 2023 SC 2366 and followed in Karim
Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors. reported in AIR 2024
SC 2193. The election petition was held to be fit for rejection on account
of non-compliance to the requirement of Section 83(1)(a) of the Act, 1951.
c. Validity of an election must relate to the grounds specified in
Section 100 of the Act, 1951 as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwati
Prasad Dixit (Ghorewala) Vs. Rajeev Gandhi (1986) 4 SCC 78 and
in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal Vs. Rajiv Gandhi reported in 1987
supplementary SCC 93. By referring to these authorities, it is argued that
unless the pleadings of the election petition are precise, the courts cannot
enter into a fishing expedition where factual assertions have not been
made as per the requirement mandated by the Act, 1951.
d. Averment made in para-26 of election petition is a false statement
given on affidavit that the respondent had been convicted on 12.02.2020
in U.R. Case No.1177 of 2014 in Cr. Appeal Case No.39 of 2020, which was
pending in the Court of A.D.J.-VIII, Dhanbad. The certified copy of the
judgment delivered in U.R. Case No. 1177 of 2014 is filed today which is
kept on record. By referring to this judgment, it is contended that the
respondent was not even an accused which will be apparent from the
cause title of the judgment. Knowing full well about the falsity of charge,
para 23 to 26 of the election petition were not deliberately verified. A false
averment made in election petition is itself a ground for rejection of plaint
as held by the Apex Court in C.P. John Vs. Babu M. Palissery & Ors.,
2026:JHHC:2731
(2014) 10 SCC 547, wherein pleadings with respect to the two criminal
cases were found to be incorrect, which among other reasons became
grounds for rejection of a plaint.
e. It is submitted that election petitioner in effect seeks to make out
a case of corrupt practice as defined under Section 133 of the Act, 1951
and in order to make out such a case, the imperative requirement as
mandated under Section 83(1b) of the Act 1951 read with Rule 94(A) of
the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 is that a separate affidavit should be
sworn before a Magistrate of the First Class or a Notary or a
Commissioner of Oaths in Form-25. This mandatory requirement has not
been followed in the present election petition. As per Rule 94(A) of the
Conduct of Election Rules in Form-25, this affidavit does not answer the
requirement of Form-25.
6. Lastly, it is contended that the plea of omission of 'liberation' in the
campaigning, wherein the returned candidate has been shown to be candidate
of भाकपा (माले ) (CPI ML) Communist Party of India (MALE) and not CPI
(Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation), has neither caused any prejudice to the
election petitioner nor it has misled the public at large and, therefore, will have
no bearing. It cannot be said that the publication can be attributed to the
respondent personally and this aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of C.P. John (supra) in para 44, wherein it has been held
that the statement of fact in the publication must be false and it should be
related to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to
the candidature or withdrawal of any candidate. Statement must be
reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election.
The said omission, which is urged, did not compromise or prejudice the
prospect of the election petitioner for declaring the election as invalid.
Statement must be reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that
candidate's election. The said omission, which is urged, did not compromise
or prejudice the prospect of the election petitioner.
7. Sum and substance of the argument advanced on behalf of the
respondent is that averments made in the pleadings do not prima facie disclose
that the returned candidate or his candidate had committed any corrupt
2026:JHHC:2731
practice or there were any substantive ground for rejection of his nomination.
Omission of word 'liberation' in the pamphlet was superficial and did not in
any way materially affect the result of the election. Security deposits were
made and quibbling over the authority with which it was deposited does not
go to the root of the matter. They do not disclose any corrupt practice on the
part of respondent. It is also not in dispute that two original affidavits were
filed in support of the nomination paper and rest of two were photocopies.
There is no allegation of false affidavit made. In the absence of prejudice to the
election petitioner, the election petition cannot be entertained. Reliance in this
regard is placed on Ajhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi, (1986 Suppl. SCC 315)
Para 25.
8. It is argued by learned counsel for the Election Petitioner that the factual
averments made in para 26 of the election petition are with regard to the
newspaper publication in the daily newspaper (Hindustan) on 03.01.2024 with
regard to conviction in criminal case against the respondent. This is a fact
which cannot be ascertained at the present stage and can only be decided after
the parties get an opportunity to lead evidence. It was incumbent on the part
of the respondent/returned candidate, who made correct paper publication.
9. It is contended that under Section 34 of the Act, 1951 the mandate is
specific that the security deposit is to be made with the returning officer in
cash. In Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Fakaruddin Ali Ahmad & Ors., (1975) 4 SCC 832,
wherein the security deposit was tendered by the candidate in the presidential
election by way of cheque that became the ground of rejection of his
candidature and was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
10. It is argued that in almost similar matter, for rejection of claim filed in
Santosh Hembram Vs. Ravindra Nath Mahto in Election Petition No. 06/2020,
the petition for election was rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and
was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.
4574/2024.
11. Lastly, it is argued that the rejection of plaint for election petition under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC will be warranted only where the petition fails
to disclose the cause of action. In the instant case, the averment disclose the
cause of action and raise triable issue, which cannot be decided at this stage.
2026:JHHC:2731
ANALYSIS
12. Grounds under which an election petition may be dismissed has been
summed up in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar, (2024) 18 SCC
592 as under,
27.1. Section 83(1)(a) of the 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.
27.2. 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.
27.3. 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.
27.4. 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, insofar as it concerned the
returned candidate, was materially affected.
27.5. 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.
27.6. 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 7CPC read with the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section
83 of the RP Act.
Grounds on which election of a returned candidate can be declared void
is provided in Section 100 of the Act which is as under: -
(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 (20 of
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, in so far as it concerns a returned
candidate, has been materially affected--
i. by the improper acceptance of any nomination, or
2026:JHHC:2731
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.
(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;
b. [Omitted];
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.
13. From the above provision, it is apparent that for declaring election void,
grounds must conform with requirements of Section 100 of the Act, 1951. On
the date of scrutiny of nomination, candidate must be qualified and must not
have incurred disqualification under Articles 84 and 102 of the Constitution of
India or there must not have been non-compliance with Section 33 or Section
34 of the Act. In order to make out a case under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act,
1951, it was necessary for petitioner to specifically plead that election was
materially affected by non-compliance with provisions of the Act, 1951 or
Rules made thereunder that the candidate indulged in corrupt practice. It is
not open to an election petitioner to simply raise an allegation of corrupt
practices; it is as much necessary that averment made with respect to practice
should be specifically supported by an affidavit.
14. Having set out the principles while considering an election petition,
matter for consideration before this Court is whether the averments made in
the pleading are sufficient to launch the trial or the election petition is fit to be
dismissed at the threshold. It is trite law that while considering a petition
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, defence is not to be considered, and it is
2026:JHHC:2731
only to be seen whether cause of action is made out on the averments made in
the plaint.
15. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, averment do not state about
the security money having not been deposited, but is confined to the allegation
that it was made with the Nazir and not with the Returning Officer. This is
something very peripheral and cannot be a ground to declare the election to be
invalid. During course of argument, it has not been denied by the election
petitioner that security money had been deposited by him in the same mode
and manner.
16. The second plea of Advocate Welfare Fund Ticket or Advocate Clerk
Stamp having not been affixed on the affidavit, is equally flippant. In any case,
the omission to affix such stamp was on the part of the Notary and the returned
candidate, cannot be held liable for the same.
17. The other ground is omission of 'liberation' in the election pamphlets,
although the returned candidate was an official candidate of CPI (ML)
Liberation. This omission cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to
mislead the voters to the detriment of the election petitioner. Each and every
discrepancy in election campaign, cannot by itself be said to come within
meaning of corrupt practice so as to make it a ground to declare the election as
invalid. Discrepant statement during election campaign should have the effect
or potential to qualitatively influence the election result. It is difficult to
comprehend how this omission did materially affect the election result. In
order to call it a discrepant and misleading statement so as to be called corrupt
practice under Sub-section 4 of Section 123 of the Act, 1951, it should be
reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the other contesting
candidates in the election, by misleading the voters. This Court is of the view
that the omission was inconsequential and cannot be said to have in any way
influenced the election result. This plea even if it is accepted, is not sufficient
for the relief claimed in the election petition.
18. Coming to the last plea of misleading notification in daily newspaper
with regard to conviction of the returned candidate, there is no averment
whatsoever to show that the returned candidate had been convicted of an
offence, which was concealed while nomination paper was filed or in the
2026:JHHC:2731
publication made in the daily newspaper. On the contrary, the certified copy
of judgment passed in U.R. Case No.1177 of 2014 filed during the course of
hearing, goes to shows that returned candidate had not even been made an
accused in this case. The statement as given in para 26 of the election petition,
ex-facie is false. It substantiates the argument advanced on behalf of the
petitioner that for this reason paragraphs 23 - 26 were not verified. Such a false
statement is itself a ground for dismissal of the election petition in view of the
ratio laid down in by the Apex Court in C.P. John Case (supra).
19. The pleadings raised in the instant election petition, does not disclose a
cause of action for the relief claimed so as to lead the election petition to any
meaningful result. There is no assertion of fact on which a prima facie inference
can be drawn that the petitioner had given a false statement on affidavit or that
corrupt practice has been committed by him or by Election Agent or by any
other person with his consent or that there was non-compliance of provisions
of Constitution or this Act within the meaning of the Representation of People
Act, 1951 For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the view that this is
a fit case for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. Election
petition is a serious matter and elected candidate cannot be dragged into a
litigation on such sketchy pleadings.
20. Interlocutory application for rejection of plaint (I.A. No. 12722 of 2025)
is allowed and the plaint of the election petition is rejected.
Election petition stands dismissed with cost. Cost assessed to
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand). Pending Interlocutory application, if
any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
Dated 03.02.2026
Anit
Uploaded
04.02.2026
