[Cites 32, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Afr Raj Kumar Yadav ....Election vs Sarada Prasad Nayak on 6 February, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
I.A No. 109 of 2024
(ARISING OUT OF ELPET No.-1 of 2024)
(An application under Section 86 of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 read with Order VI Rule 16, Order VII Rule-11 and Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure)
AFR Raj Kumar Yadav ....Election Petitioner
-Versus-
Sarada Prasad Nayak .... Respondent
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Election Petitioner : M/s. K.K Mohapatra, D. Nayak,
S.R. Swain, U.K. Mohapatra, S. Das
B. Das, Advocates
For Respondent : M/s. U K Samal, M.R. Mohapatra,
S.P. Patra, N. Samal, Advocates
__________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
06.02.2026
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The present application has been filed by the
sole Respondent of the Election Petition under Section 86
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with
Order VI Rule 16, Order VII Rule 11, and Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. By way of this application, the
Respondent has prayed for striking out the pleadings
contained in Paragraphs 8(A) to 8(G) of the Election Petition
and for rejection/dismissal of the Election Petition in its
entirety at the threshold in terms of Section 86 of the said
Act. It has been urged on behalf of the Respondent that the
averments sought to be struck off are wholly irrelevant,
frivolous, and scandalous in nature, and amount to gross
abuse of the process of the Court. It is further contended
that the Election Petition is devoid of the essential material
facts and particulars, fails to disclose a complete cause of
action, and does not give rise to any triable issues, thereby
rendering it liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage.
2. The Election Petition has been instituted by the
Election Petitioner seeking (a) a declaration that the
election of the Respondent, Sarada Prasad Nayak, from 12-
Rourkela Assembly Constituency to the Odisha State
Legislative Assembly be declared void, and (b) a
consequential direction for re-election/fresh poll in the said
Constituency.
3. The election of the Respondent has been principally
challenged on the ground of improper acceptance of his
nomination by the Returning Officer.
(i) It is alleged that while filing his nomination papers, the
Respondent failed to disclose material particulars in the
affidavit in Form-26, specifically:
(a) non-disclosure of pending criminal cases; and
(b) non-disclosure of joint property holdings.
(ii) According to the Petitioner, such non-disclosure and
suppression of material facts amount to violation of the
mandatory requirements under Section 33-A of the Act
read with Rule 4-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961,
thereby rendering the acceptance of the nomination papers
of the Respondent by the Returning Officer improper within
the meaning of Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Act.
4. Pursuant to notice, the Respondent entered
appearance and filed his written statement. The
Respondent has further filed the present application
raising certain preliminary grounds, which shall be
adverted to in the subsequent paragraphs. The Election
Petitioner, in turn, has filed detailed objections traversing
and controverting the averments made therein.
5. For convenience, the parties are referred to as
per their original status in the Election Petition.
6. In the present application, the Respondent at the
threshold has urged that although the Election Petitioner
claims that 14 persons, including him, had filed
nomination papers, his own nomination was rejected and
such rejection has not been assailed in the petition. It is
further pointed out that the Election Petitioner has neither
pleaded that he contested the election nor that he has
instituted the petition in the capacity of an elector. In the
absence of such averments, it is contended that the
Election Petitioner lacks locus standi to maintain the
present petition and, therefore, is liable to be dismissed in
limine. Along with the above, the Respondent has also
contended that the copy of the Election Petition served
upon him is defective inasmuch as it contains two separate
pages bearing the same page number "26" with different
contents, which, according to him, does not constitute a
true and attested copy of the petition filed before this
Court, thereby violating the mandate of Section 81(3) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 warranting
dismissal under Section 86(1) thereof. It is further
submitted that the pleadings in Paragraphs 10(A) to 10(G)
of the petition, on which the relief is founded, are vague,
bald, and imprecise, being devoid of material facts, material
particulars, and supporting documents, and thus fail to
disclose a complete cause of action as contemplated under
Section 83(1)(a) of the Act. According to the Respondent,
specific deficiencies exist in each of the said paragraphs,
such as the absence of nomination papers, Form-26
affidavit, source of information, supporting documentary
evidence, particulars of the alleged non-disclosure or
misinformation, and any explanation as to how the result
of the election was materially affected.
7. The Election Petitioner has filed objection to the
present Interlocutory Application stating that the Election
Petition has been filed after duly disclosing his status as a
candidate or an elector of 12-Rourkela Assembly
Constituency, as required under Section 81 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951. Therefore, the
allegation made with regard to locus standi is wholly
misconceived, baseless, and unsustainable in law. In the
objection, the Election Petitioner states that on a conjoint
and meaningful reading of Paragraphs-1, 2 and 3 of the
Election Petition, the status of the Election Petitioner, Sri
Raj Kumar Yadav, stands clearly disclosed. Paragraph-1 of
the Election Petition sets out the relevant dates and
schedule of the General Election to the 12-Rourkela
Assembly Constituency; Paragraph-2 specifically discloses
the list of candidates who had filed their nominations,
wherein the name of the Election Petitioner appears at Sl.
No.-4; and Paragraph-3 further clarifies the status of the
Election Petitioner and other candidates whose
nominations were either accepted, rejected, or withdrawn,
thereby indicating the status of the Election Petitioner.
8. Heard Mr. U.K Samal, learned counsel for the
Respondent and Mr.K.K. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for
the Election Petitioner.
9. This Court has carefully examined the averments
contained in the Election Petition as well as the
contentions advanced on behalf of the Respondent in the
present application. At the outset, it is considered
appropriate to address the question of locus standi of the
Election Petitioner, which has been specifically raised by
learned counsel appearing for the Respondent as the same
goes to the root of the matter.
10. Mr. Samal, would argue that the Election
Petitioner has not satisfied the essential condition
prescribed under Section 81 of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, namely, to disclose that he has filed the
petition either in the capacity of a candidate or as an
elector of the concerned constituency. It is contended that
although the Election Petitioner had filed his nomination,
the same having been rejected, he cannot, in law, be
treated as a 'candidate' in the election. Further, it cannot
also be held that the petition has been filed in the capacity
of a voter since there is no specific averment to that effect,
nor has the Election Petitioner furnished particulars such
as his EPIC number. It is also pointed out that in the
objection filed to the present application, the Election
Petitioner has not clarified this aspect nor asserted the
capacity in which he has approached this Court, but has
merely stated that Paragraph 3 of the Election Petition
discloses the status of the parties whose nominations were
either withdrawn, rejected, or accepted, which, according to
him, makes the status of the Petitioner crystal clear before
this Court.
11. Per contra, Mr. Mohapatra submits that the
objection as to locus standi is wholly misconceived. It is
urged that Paragraph 3 of the Election Petition clearly sets
out the status of the Election Petitioner as one who had
duly filed his nomination papers for 12-Rourkela Assembly
Constituency and was, therefore, a 'candidate' within the
meaning of Section 79(b) of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, notwithstanding the subsequent rejection
of his nomination. It is contended that the expression
'candidate' under the Act is of wide import and includes not
only contesting candidates but also every person who has
been duly nominated by a political party. The rejection of
his nomination, therefore, does not disentitle him from
questioning the election of the returned candidate.
Mr. Mohapatra further submits that even
assuming without admitting that the Election Petitioner
could not be treated as a candidate, he continues to be an
elector of the 12-Rourkela Assembly Constituency, which
fact stands pleaded in the petition on conjoint reading of
the paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, and is sufficient compliance of
Section 81 of the Act. It is argued that the technical plea of
non-disclosure of EPIC number or other electoral
particulars cannot defeat the substantive right conferred by
law, particularly when the Respondent has not denied that
the Election Petitioner is an elector in the said
Constituency.
12. This Court has heard learned counsel for both
sides at length and carefully examined the pleadings in the
Election Petition as well as the precedents cited.
13. At this stage, it is considered appropriate to
reproduce Section 81 of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951, which delineates who may present an election
petition:
"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 8 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 3*** and every such copy shall
be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to
be a true copy of the petition."
[Emphasis Added]
A plain reading of the above provision makes it clear that a
person calling an election in question must either be a
candidate at such election or an elector. The term 'elector'
has been clarified in the Explanation to sub-section (1),
while Section 79(b) of the Act defines a 'candidate' as
follows:
"'candidate' means a person who has been or
claims to have been duly nominated as a
candidate at any election"
14. It is undisputed that the Election Petitioner was
the official nominated candidate of Indian National
Congress and had filed his nomination for 12-Rourkela
Assembly Constituency, which was subsequently rejected
by the Returning Officer.
It is true that the Election Petitioner has not
specifically averred in the body of the petition the exact
capacity in which he has filed the Election petition.
However, in his objection to the Respondent's present
application, he has clarified this aspect in the following
manner:
"That the allegation of the present
petitioner/Respondent that Election Petition has been
filed by Sri Raj Kumar Yadav without disclosing his
status as a candidate or an elector of 12-Rourkela
Assembly Constituency as required under Section-81 of
the R.P Act, which is misconceived and without any
basis.
Fact remains that on conjoint reading of paragraphs- 1,
2 and 3 of the election petition, the status of the
petitioner Sri Raj Kumar Yadav is clearly stipulated
wherein para-1 clarifies different relevant dates of the
schedule of general elections in "12 Rourkela Assembly
constituency".
Likewise Para-2 discloses the list of candidates who
had filed their nominations in which, name of the
petitioner also finds place in SL No. 4.
And para-3 of the election petition discloses that the
present status of the election petitioner and other
candidates nominations of whom and were either
withdrawn, rejected or accepted making the status of
the party crystal clear before this Hon'ble Court."
For better appreciation 1 to 3 paragraphs are quoted below:
"1. That, "12-Rourkela Assembly Constituency" is one of
the Assembly Constituencies under the Parliamentary
Constituency in the periphery of District of Sundargarh
and the same is the out of 147 Assembly Constituency
from the Odisha State Legislative Assembly.
The schedule of General Election of the Seventeenth
Odisha State Legislative Assembly relates Assembly to
Constituency hereunder:
Date Events
26.04.2024 Election Commission of India has
notification parliamentary constituencies
election for Phase-V.
03.05.2024 Last date for making nominations for
such States and Union Territories.
04.05.2024 Date for scrutiny of nominations.
06.05.2024 Last date for withdrawal of
candidatures
06.06.2024 Date before which the election shall be
completed in all the parliamentary
constituency
2. That during such process of Election, following 14
number of persons had filed their nominations in shape
of affidavit;
Sl. Name of Contesting Name of political party
No. Candidate
1 Dhruba Charan Behera Independent
2 Milan Chandra Mahanta AJSU Party
3 Thomas Bartholomio Independent
Dungdung
4 Raj Kumar Yadav Nationalist Congress Party
5 Swarup Mishra Kosal Janata Party
6 Kamla Kishore Agarwal Indian Citizens Party
7 Nirmal Kumar Das Bharateeya Jawan Kisan
Party
8 Biswa Bhusan Mahanta National Apni Party
9 Nihar Ray Independent
10 Laxmi Ekka Bahujan Samaj Party
11 Biswanath Lakra Independent
12 Sarada Prasad Nayak Biju Janata Dal
13 Birendra Nath Pattnaik Indian National Congress
14 Dilip Kumar Ray Bharatiya Janta Party
3. That out of 14 number of candidates, one Bishwa
Bhusan Mahanta (SI No.8) from National Apni Party has
withdrawn and two numbers of candidature i.e Raj
Kumar Yadav (Petitioner) from Nationalist Congress
Party and Laxmi Ekka (SI. No. 10) from Bahujan Samaj
Party have been rejected and the remain following
candidature were accepted;
Sl. Name of Contesting Name of political
No. Candidate party
1 Dhruba Charan Behera Independent
2 Milan Chandra AJSU Party
Mahanta
3 Thomas Bartholomio Independent
Dungdung
4 Swarup Mishra Kosal Janata Party
5 Kamla Kishore Indian Citizens
Agarwal Party
6 Nirmal Kumar Das Bharateeya Jawan
Kisan Party
7 Nihar Ray Independent
8 Biswanath Lakra Independent
9 Sarada Prasad Nayak Biju Janata Dal
10 Birendra Nath Pattnaik Indian National
Congress
11 Dilip Kumar Ray Bharatiya Janta
Party
Fact remains the present Petitioner and Respondent had
filed their nomination paper on 01.05.2024 and the
candidature of Respondent had been accepted
[Emphasis added]"
Although the answer is somewhat prevaricative, on a
combined reading of the pleadings and the submissions of
learned counsel, it appears that the petition has been
instituted by the Election Petitioner in the capacity of a
candidate whose nomination was rejected.
15. The question which, therefore, arises for
consideration is, whether the Election Petitioner, whose
nomination stood rejected by the Returning Officer, can
still be said to be a 'candidate duly nominated' within the
meaning of Section 79(b) of the Act, so as to make him
competent to maintain the present Election Petition.
16. As already stated, Section 79(b) defines:
'candidate' to mean "a person who has been or
claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate
at any election."
[Emphasis supplied]
17. It would now be proper to refer to some judicial
pronouncements in this regard. The Supreme Court in Tej
Bahadur v. Narendra Modi1 elaborated the scope of the
term 'candidate' in the context of Section 79(b). It was
observed as under:
"15. Section 81 of the RP Act, 1951 provides that an
election petition may be presented by (a) any elector or
(b) any candidate at such election. The Explanation to
Section 81 provides that an "elector" means a person
who was entitled to vote at the election to which the
election petition relates. In this case, the election is to
the Varanasi Parliamentary seat. Obviously, the
appellant is not an elector registered in the Varanasi
constituency since he is admittedly enrolled as an
elector of Bhiwani, Mahendragarh Parliamentary
Constituency, Haryana. His locus thus depends entirely
on the question whether he is a candidate or can claim
to be a duly nominated candidate.
16. The term 'candidate' is defined in Section 79(b) [
"79. (b) 'candidate' means a person who has been or
claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at
any election;"] of the Act. The first part of definition is
intended to cover a person who has been duly
nominated as a candidate. Inter alia the second part
covers a person who considers himself entitled to have
been duly nominated as a candidate.
17. According to the appellant, he is a person who has
claimed to have been duly nominated as a candidate at
the Varanasi Election and, therefore, the High Court
ought to have considered his election petition as
maintainable.
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.
(2021) 14 SCC 211
19. The requirement of Section 33(3) that a nomination
of a dismissed officer must be accompanied by a
certificate that he was not dismissed on the ground of
corruption or disloyalty to the State must be read as
obligatory. It is couched in a language which is
imperative and provides for a certain consequence viz.
that such a person shall not be deemed to be a duly
nominated candidate. The word "deemed" in this
provision does not create a legal fiction. It clarifies any
doubt anyone might entertain as to the legal character of
a person who has not and states with definiteness that
such a person shall not be deemed to be duly
nominated. It would, therefore, be absurd to construe
the legislative scheme as permitting a person who has
not filed his nomination in accordance with Section
33(3), as enabling him to claim that he is a duly
nominated candidate even though the provision
mandates that such a person shall not be deemed to be
a duly nominated candidate.
20. We are of the view that the mandate of the law that
such a person shall not be deemed to be duly nominated
must be given full effect and no person must be
considered as entitled to claim that he has been duly
nominated even though he does not comply with the
requirement of law. Though these observations were
made in the context of different requirements as to
nominations, the law laid down by this Court in several
decisions including Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail
Singh [Charan Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh, (1984) 1
SCC 390] must clearly govern the present case. This
Court in that case considered the question : when a
person can claim to have been duly nominated as a
candidate under Section 13(a) of the Presidential and
Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952. The Court
observed : (SCC pp. 398-99, paras 11-12)
"11. ... But, the claim to have been duly nominated
cannot be made by a person whose nomination paper
does not comply with the mandatory requirements of
Section 5-B(1)(a) of the Act. That is to say, a person
whose nomination paper, admittedly, was not
subscribed by the requisite number of electors as
proposers and seconders cannot claim that he was
duly nominated. Such a claim can only be made by a
person who can show that his nomination paper
conformed to the provisions of Section 5-B and yet it
was rejected, that is, wrongly rejected by the
Returning Officer. To illustrate, if the Returning Officer
rejects a nomination paper on the ground that one of
the ten subscribers who had proposed the nomination
is not an elector, the petitioner can claim to have been
duly nominated if he proves that the said proposer
was in fact an "elector".
12. Thus, the occasion for a person to make a claim
that he was duly nominated can arise only if his
nomination paper complies with the statutory
requirements which govern the filing of nomination
papers and not otherwise. The claim that he was
"duly" nominated necessarily implies and involves
the claim that his nomination paper conformed to the
requirements of the statute. Therefore, a contestant
whose nomination paper is not subscribed by at least
ten electors as proposers and ten electors as
seconders, as required by Section 5-B(1)(a) of the Act,
cannot claim to have been duly nominated, any more
than a contestant who had not subscribed his assent
to his own nomination can. The claim of a contestant
that he was duly nominated must arise out of his
compliance with the provisions of the Act. It cannot
arise out of the violation of the Act. Otherwise, a
person who had not filed any nomination paper at all
but who had only informed the Returning Officer
orally that he desired to contest the election could
also contend that he "claims to have been duly
nominated as a candidate"."
Applying the above decision to the present case it
was necessary for the appellant to show that his
nomination paper conformed to the provisions of
Section 33(3) of the Act.
[Emphasis added]
18. Additionally, this Court places reliance on the
judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Hari Krishna
Lal v. Atal Bihari Bajpai2, wherein it was held as follows-
"35.In Indira Nehru Gandhi (AIR 1975 SC 2299) (supra),
the factual position was that she had filed her
nomination paper on 1-2-1971. It was alleged that
between 4-1-1971 to 24-1-1971 she had procured the
assistance of Sri Yash Pal Kapoor, a Government
Servant and thus was guilty of corrupt practice under
Section 123(7) of the Act. The submission of the election
petitioner was that she had herself out as a candidate
before 1-2-1971 at a press conference and thus became
AIR 2003 Allahabad 128
a candidate. Section 79 clearly states that "in this Part
and in Part VII unless the context otherwise requires- (a)
...... (b) "candidate" means a person who has been or
claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at
any election. . ."In the said case itself, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court was conscious of the fact that it was
interpreting the word 'candidate' with respect to Section
123(7) of the Act. This would clear from the following
observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
paragraphs 218 of the judgment:All138 "Regarding
word 'candidate' in Section 123(7) of the Representation
of the People Act, in the sense in which it has been
defined. . . . . ., I find that the only reasonable inference
is that the person referred to as a candidate in that
clause should be a person who has been or claims to
have been duly nominated as a candidate at an election
and not one who is yet to be nominated. "In Paragraph
221, it has been categorically held that a person cannot
be treated as candidate before filing a nomination
paper. The dispute thus was whether a person can
claim to be a duly nominated candidate before filing a
nomination paper. The meaning of the word 'candidate'
in the circumstances has to be determined in the context
in which it is used. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held
in Sham Rao's case, 1956 SCR 644 : (AIR 1957 SC 23)
that the same word may have different meanings in
different sections of an Act and even in the same Section
of an Act. The principle underlying the said decision
was reiterated in C.I.T. v. Venkateshwara Hatcheries
Pvt. Ltd., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 632 : (AIR 1999 SC
1225). The decision in Indira Nehru Gandhi (AIR 1975
SC 2299) relied by the petitioner is not applicable to the
facts of the present case. A person merely by filing a
nomination paper cannot be deemed to be a 'duly
nominated candidate' for the purposes of Section 81 as
if after filing the nomination paper he does not give a
certified copy of the electoral list (if he belongs to
another constituency) or does not give the particulars of
his belonging to SC/ST Category (Section 33(2)) or does
not give a certificate under Section 9 or take oath (Article
84), he will not acquire the status of a 'duly nominated
candidate'. The argument of the petitioner that merely
by filing a nomination paper, he becomes a duly
nominated candidate, on the date of such filing cannot
be accepted as other formalities have to be completed
including filing of an affidavit as required by the Election
Commission.
42.The Election Commission of India in exercise of its
power under Art. 324 of the Constitution of India has
passed the order dated 28-8-1997 keeping in view that
the country is facing the serious problem of
criminalisation of politics in which criminals, i.e. persons
convicted by courts of law for certain offences, are
entering into election fray and contesting as candidates.
While passing the aforesaid order, the Election
Commission considered the various pronouncements of
High Courts of the country and Hon'ble the Supreme
Court including the case of Purshottamlal Kaushik v.
Vidya Charan Shukla decided by the Madhya Pradesh
High Court reported in 66 Election Law Reports 110 :
(AIR 1980 MP 188), theAll140 case of Shri Sachindra
Nath Tripathi v. Doodnath decided by this Court
reported in 84 Election Law Report 46 and the case of
Vikram Anand v. Rakesh Singha (AIR 1995 Him Pra
130) decided by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in
which the election of Rakesh Singha was declared void.
The appeal filed by Sri Rakesh Singha was also
dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court holding that
Sri Singha was disqualified ab initio for contesting
elections under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, as evident from the order dated 28-8-
1997.
43. The disqualifications are prescribed under Art. 102
of the Constitution of India read with Section 8 of the
Representation of the People Act, the manner of
determination of the disqualification is not provided
either by Art. 102 of the Constitution of India or by
Section 8 of the Act and in the absence of any positive
requirement for filing of an affidavit, the Returning
Officer while exercising powers under Section 36 will
have to act on the basis of merely a declaration made in
the nomination paper. The necessity for issuing the
directions by the Election Commission is in order to give
effect to the provisions of Art. 102(e) of the Constitution
of India and Section 8 of the Act as a person so
disqualified cannot be permitted to contest an election.
The petitioner whom sufficient time was given for filing
the affidavit has chosen not to file the affidavit as
required by the Election Commission and it was a willful
defiance on his part and it cannot be said that he was a
duly nominated candidate and has locus standi to file
an election petition. The Returning Officer has only
observed the direction issued by the Election
Commission for which he was legally under an
obligation. The contention of Sri R.N. Trivedi, Additional
Solicitor General of India that the petitioner is not a duly
nominated candidate and has no right to maintain the
petition has force.As the petitioner was not a duly
nominated candidate under the provisions of the
Representation of the People Act and the Constitution of
India, he has no locus standi to file the instant Election
Petition. It is accordingly rejected at the preliminary
stage. There shall be no order as to costs."
[Emphasis Added]
19. Applying the above principle, this Court finds
that the Election Petitioner, whose nomination paper stood
rejected at the stage of scrutiny, cannot be said to fall
within the definition of 'candidate' under Section 79(b) of
the Act. No material has been placed before this Court to
establish that his nomination conformed to the statutory
requirements and was wrongly rejected. In fact, there is not
a even whisper in the election petition that his nomination
being wrongly rejected, he is to be treated as a duly
nominated candidate.
20. This Court further observes that the Election
Petitioner has not clearly pleaded that he instituted the
present petition in the alternative capacity of an 'elector' of
the concerned constituency. The pleadings are
conspicuously silent in this respect. It is well settled that
the Representation of the People Act, 1951, being a self-
contained code, mandates strict compliance with its
provisions. The democratic mandate expressed through the
ballot cannot be unsettled on the basis of vague or deficient
pleadings, unsupported by the essential statutory
foundation of locus standi.
21. In the absence of any clear and specific
averments establishing his statutory status either as a
'candidate' or for that matter a duly nominated candidate
under Section 79(b) or as an 'elector' under Section 81(1) of
the Act, this Court holds that the Election Petitioner does
not possess the requisite locus standi to maintain this
petition.
22. Resultantly, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the Respondent has successfully demonstrated
the absence of locus standi of the Election Petitioner. To
permit the continuance of such a petition would be an
abuse of the process of the Court. That said, it becomes
unnecessary to delve into any other contentions raised by
the parties.
23. Accordingly, the I.A is allowed. The election
petition stands dismissed for lack of locus standi of the
Election Petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
24. Office is directed to communicate the substance
of this order to the Election Commission and the Speaker
of the State Legislative Assembly at the earliest, so also an
authenticated copy of this order to the Election
Commission, in terms of Section 103 of the R.P. Act, read
with Rule 16 under Chapter-XXXIII of the High Court of
Orissa Rules, 1948.
.................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 6th February, 2026/ A.K. Rana, P.A.
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 09-Feb-2026 17:15:48
