Master Ramesh Khatri Lambardar vs Surender Panwar
2023 Latest Caselaw 234 P&H

C.M. No.10-E of 2022 in/ and                                            1
Election Petition No.12 of 2019

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 C.M. No.10-E of 2022 in/ and
                                                Election Petition No.12 of 2019
                                                       Reserved on: 29.11.2022
                                                  Date of Decision: 09.01.2023



Master Ramesh Khatri Lambardar
                                                                  ....Petitioner
                                    Versus

Surender Panwar
                                                      ...Applicant-Respondent


CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Deepak Sibal


Present:     Petitioner in person
             Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate for the respondent

Deepak Sibal, J.

The present order shall dispose of an application filed by the

applicant-respondent under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure 1908 (for short - the Code) read with Section 83 of the

Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short - the Act) seeking therein

rejection of the main election petition on the ground that a reading of the

same does not disclose any cause of action.

On 21.09.2021 the Election Commission of India (for short -

the ECI) announced the dates for holding of Assembly Elections in 31-

Sonipat Assembly Constituency in the State of Haryana. The ECI also

notified the schedule for the date of issuance of the gazette notification; last

date for filing of nominations; date of scrutiny of the filed nominations; last

date for withdrawal of candidature; the date of polling; date of counting and

1 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

the date of declaration of the result. 14 candidates, including the petitioner

and respondent, contested the election. After the declaration of the results

the respondent was declared elected as he secured the highest number of

valid polled votes i.e. 79438 votes. The petitioner secured 175 votes.

Through the main petition the petitioner challenges the

respondent's election on the ground that during his election the respondent

had indulged in several corrupt practices.

On being put to notice the respondent did not file a written

statement. Instead, he filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the

Code, duly supported by an affidavit, seeking rejection of the petitioner's

election petition on the ground that the contents thereof were vague, non-

specific, irrelevant and that the same did not disclose any cause of action. It

was further submitted that the pleadings of the election petition also did not

conform to the requirements under Section 83 of the Act as they lacked

portrayal of material facts/ full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice(s).

Therefore, it was prayed that the election petition was not worth to be put on

trial and being an abuse of the process of the Court, was liable to be

outrightly rejected.

Per contra, the petitioner who appeared in person, submitted

that by not declaring actual expenses incurred during the course of his

election campaign, the respondent had indulged in corrupt practices and in

this regard specific averments had been made by him in his petition.

Therefore, the application filed by the respondent seeking outright rejection

of the petitioner's election petition be dismissed and his election petition be

put to trial and thereafter be allowed.

2 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

The petitioner who appeared in person and learned counsel for

the respondent have been heard at length and with their able assistance the

record of the case has also been perused.

The first question before this Court is as to whether under

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code the petitioner's election petition can be

rejected at the preliminary stage even before the filing of a written statement

by the respondent.

To answer the afore question reference to Sections 80, 80A, 83

and 87 of the Act would be necessary and therefore, these Sections are

reproduced below for reference:-

"80. Election petitions.--No election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part.

80A. High Court to try election petitions.--(1) The Court having jurisdiction to try an election petition shall be the High Court.

(2) Such jurisdiction shall be exercised ordinarily by a single Judge of the High Court and the Chief Justice shall, from time to time, assign one or more Judges for that purpose:

Provided that where the High Court consists only of one Judge, he shall try all election petitions presented to that Court.

(3) The High Court in its discretion may, in the interests of justice or convenience, try an election petition, wholly or partly, at a place other than the place of seat of the High Court.

83. Contents of petition.--(1) An election petition--

(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies;

(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that

3 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

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.

87. Procedure before the High Court.--(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) to the trial of suits:

Provided that the High Court shall have the discretion to refuse, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to examine any witness or witnesses if it is of the opinion that the evidence of such witness or witnesses is not material for the decision of the petition or that the party tendering such witness or witnesses is doing so on frivolous grounds or with a view to delay the proceedings.

(2) The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1972), shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to apply in all respects to the trial of an election petition."

As per Sections 80 and 80A of the Act an election can be

challenged only through an election petition filed in a High Court in

accordance with Part VI of the Act. The grounds on which an election can

4 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

be set aside are contained in Sections 100 and 101 of the Act. Section 83

provides that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of

material facts and shall set forth full particulars of the alleged corrupt

practice which particulars shall include as full a statement as possible of

names of the parties who are alleged to have committed the corrupt

practice(s) as also the date and places where each of the corrupt practice has

taken place. Section 86 provides as to how an election petition is to be tried

by a High Court. Section 87 of the Act spells out the procedure to be

followed during the course of such trial and since as per this Section every

election petition is to be tried as per the procedure laid down in the Code,

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code would be applicable to an election petition.

Thus, a challenge to an election has to be through a petition

filed before a High Court and the same should contain specific and

unambiguous pleadings regarding the alleged corrupt practice(s) including

as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have

committed the corrupt practice alongwith the date and place of the

commission of each of such event. In an election petition allegations of

corrupt practice(s) cannot be inferred. These allegations are akin to criminal

charges. They are required to be specific so that the returned candidate can

effectively defend himself. Thus, it is necessary for the Court to strictly

scrutinize the pleadings with regard to the allegations of corrupt practices

and if in the course of such scrutiny it is revealed that they are vague, non-

specific and general as also that they lack material particulars, as required

under Section 83 of the Act, then the election petition would be held to not

disclose any cause of action warranting its outright rejection under Order

5 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

VII Rule 11 of the Code. Anything to the contrary would not only waste the

time of the Court but also burden the respondent with a long drawn trial.

The afore conclusion of this Court finds support from the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardwari Lal vs. Kanwal Singh, (1972)

1 SCC 214 wherein it has been held that in case the pleadings of an election

petition do not contain full particulars or statement of the material facts of

the alleged corrupt practice the same should be dismissed for non furnishing

of a cause of action. It was further held that particulars of all alleged

corrupt practices are required to be given in the election petition and that

vague averments would be in violation of the requirements of the Act. The

relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read under as under:-

"21. The necessity of clear and precise allegations to support a plea of corrupt practice was emphasised by this Court in Harish Chandra Bajpai v. Triloki Singh 12 Election Law Reports 461 Venkatarama Ayyar, J. speaking for the Court in dealing with the powers of the Court to allow amendment in respect of illegal or corrupt practice said that where the allegation in the election petition in regard to the corrupt practice was that the respondents could in furtherance of their election enlist the support of Government servants, the words "could enlist" did not amount to an averment that in fact they enlisted their support. In other words, it was observed that the words "could enlist" did not allege a fact which happened. Therefore, the happening of fact as well as the fact itself is material Judged by that test in the present case there is no allegation which will amount to any averment of any assistance as a fact in the absence of the kind of assistance being set out as a fact.

22. The allegations in paragraph 16 of the election petition do not amount to any statement of material fact of corrupt

6 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

practice. It is not stated as to what kind or form of assistance was obtained or procured or attempted to obtain or procure. It is not stated from whom the particular type of assistance was obtained or procured or attempted to obtain or procure. It is not stated in what manner the assistance was for the furtherance of the prospects of the elections. The gravamen of the charge of corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 (7) of the Act is obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure any assistance other than the giving of vote. In the absence of any suggestion as to what that assistance was the election petition is lacking in the most vital and essential material fact to furnish a cause of action.

23. Counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that an election petition could not be dismissed by reason of want of material facts because section 86 of the Act conferred power on the High Court to dismiss the election petition which did not comply with the provisions of section 81, or section 82 or section 117 of the Act. It was emphasised that section 33 did not find place in section 86. Under section 87 of the Act every election petition shall be tried by the High Court as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to the trial of suits. A suit which does not furnish cause of action can be dismissed.

24. In the present case, it is not necessary to go to the question as to whether the High Court was justified in disallowing the particulars and in refusing to recall the witnesses for the reasons given in the order, because paragraph 16 of the election petition on which the High Court relied to declare the election of the appellant void does not amount to an election petition on the grounds mentioned in section 123 (7) of the Act."

Similarly, in Subhash Desai vs. Sharad J. Rao and others, 1994

Supp (2) SCC 446 the Supreme Court held that if an election petition does not

7 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

contain material facts or full particulars of corrupt practices the same would

not disclose any cause of action and was liable to be dismissed by applying

provisions of the Code. Paragraph No.11 of the judgment reads as under:-

11. Section 86 vests power in the High Court to dismiss an election petition which has not been properly presented as required by Section 81; or where there has been non- compliance of Section 82 i.e. non-joinder of the necessary parties to the election petition; or for non-compliance of Section 117 i.e. non-deposit of the required amount as security for the costs of the election petition. Section 86 does not contemplate dismissal of the election petition for non-

compliance of the requirements of Section 83 of the Act. But Section 83 enjoins that an election petition shall contain concise statement of material facts, and shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, which should be verified and supported by affidavit, so far the allegations of corrupt practices are concerned. This provision is not only procedural, but has an object behind it; so that a person declared to have been elected is not dragged to court to defend and support the validity of his election, on allegations of corrupt practice which are not precise and details whereof have not been supported by a proper affidavit. Apart from that, unless the material facts and full particulars of the corrupt practices are set forth properly in the election petition, the person whose election is challenged, is bound to be prejudiced in defending himself of the charges, which have been levelled against him. In view of the repeated pronouncements of this Court, that the charge of corrupt practice is quasi criminal in nature, the person challenging an election on the ground of corrupt practice, cannot. take liberty of making any vague or reckless allegations, without taking the responsibility about the correctness thereof. Before the Court proceeds to investigate such allegations, the Court must be satisfied, that the material

8 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

facts have been stated along with the full particulars of the corrupt practice, alleged by the petitioner, which have been duly supported by art affidavit. In cases where the Court finds that neither material facts have been stated, nor full particulars of the corrupt practice, as required by Section 83 have been furnished in the election petition, the election petition can be dismissed, not under Section 86, but under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, which are applicable, read with Section 83(l) of the Act, saying that it does not disclose a cause of action. This aspect has been examined by this Court in detail in the cases of Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315; Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh, (1972) 1 SCC 214.

To the same effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315, wherein it has been

held that the power lay with the High Court to throw out an election petition

at the threshold if a reading thereof did not disclose any cause of action.

The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:-

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next argued that in any event the powers to reject an election petition summarily under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure should not be exercised at the threshold. In substance, the argument is that the court must proceed with the trial, record the evidence, and only after the trial of the election petition is concluded that the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure for dealing appropriately with the defective petition which does not disclose cause of action should be exercised. With respect to the learned counsel, it is an argument which it is difficult to comprehend. The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the court and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of

9 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

Damocle need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary Civil litigation the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint if it does not disclose any cause of action. Or the power to direct the concerned party to strike out unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious parts of the pleadings. Or such pleadings which are likely to cause embarrassment or delay the fair trial of the action or which is otherwise an abuse of the process of law. An order directing a party to strike out a part of the pleading would result in the termination of the case arising in the context of the said pleading. The Courts in exercise of the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure can also treat any point going to the root of the matter such as one pertaining to jurisdiction or maintainability as a preliminary point and can dismiss a suit without proceeding to record evidence and hear elaborate arguments in the context of such evidence, if the Court is satisfied that the action would terminate in view of the merits of the preliminary point of objection. The contention that even if the election petition is liable to be dismissed ultimately it should be so dismissed only after recording evidence is a thoroughly misconceived and untenable argument. The powers in this behalf are meant to be exercised to serve the purpose for which the same have been conferred on the competent Court so that the litigation comes to an end at the earliest and the concerned litigants are relieved of the psychological burden of the litigation so as to be free to follow their ordinary pursuits and discharge their duties. And so that they can adjust their affairs on the footing that the litigation will not make demands on their time or resources, will not impede their future work, and they are free to undertake and fulfil other commitments. Such being the position in regard to matters pertaining to ordinary Civil litigation, there is greater reason for taking the same view in regard to matters pertaining to elections. So long as the sword

10 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

of Damocles of the election petition remains hanging an elected member of the Legislature would not feel sufficiently free to devote his whole-hearted attention to matters of public importance which clamour for his attention in his capacity as an elected representative of the concerned constituency. The time and attention demanded by his elected office will have to be diverted to matters pertaining to the contest of the election petition. Instead of being engaged in a campaign to relieve the distress of the people in general and of the residents of his constituency who voted him into office, and instead of resolving their problems, he would be engaged in a campaign to establish that he has in fact been duly elected. Instead of discharging his functions as the elected representative of the people, he will be engaged in a struggle to establish that he is indeed such a representative, notwithstanding the fact that he has in fact won the verdict and the confidence of the electorate at the polls. He will have not only to win the vote of the people but also to win the vote of the Court in a long drawn out litigation before he can whole-heartedly engaged himself in discharging the trust reposed in him by the electorate. The pendency of the election petition would also act as a hindrance if he be entrusted with some public office in his elected capacity. He may even have occasions to deal with the representatives of foreign powers who may wonder whether he will eventually succeed and hesitate to deal with him. The fact that an election petition calling into question his election is pending may, in a given case, act as a psychological fetter and may not permit him to act with full freedom. Even if he is made of stern metal, the constraint introduced by the pendency of an election petition may have some impact on his sub-conscious mind without his ever being or becoming aware of it. Under the circumstances, there is greater reason why in a democratic set-

up, in regard to a matter pertaining to an elected representative of the people which is likely to inhibit him in the

11 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

discharge of his duties towards the Nation, the controversy is set at rest at the earliest, if the facts of the case and the law so warrant. Since the Court has the power to act at the threshold the power must be exercised at the threshold itself in case the Court is satisfied that it is a fit case for the exercise of such power and that exercise of such powers is warranted under the relevant provisions of law. To wind up the dialogue, to contend that the powers to dismiss or reject an election petition or pass appropriate orders should not be exercised except at the stage of final judgment after recording the evidence even if the facts of the case warrant exercise of such powers, at the threshold, is to contend that the legislature conferred these powers without point or purpose, and we must close our mental eye to the presence of the powers which should be treated as non- existent. The Court cannot accede to such a proposition. The submission urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this behalf must therefore be firmly repelled.

To the same effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Dhartipakar Madan Lal Aggarwal vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1987 Supp SCC 93

wherein it was held that the High Court would have the jurisdiction to reject

an election petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code if the Court was

satisfied that the election petition does not disclose a cause of action.

Paragraphs 8 and 11 of the judgment, which are relevant, are reproduced

below:-

"8.The first question which falls for our determination is whether the High Court had jurisdiction to strike out pleadings under Order 6, Rule 16, C.P.C. and to reject the election petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code at the preliminary stage even though no written statement had been filed by the respondent. Section 80 provides that no election is to be called in question except by an election petition presented in

12 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Act before the High Court. Section 81 provides that an election petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 by an elector or by a candidate questioning the election of a returned candidate. Section 83 provides that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and he shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that he may allege including full statement 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. Section 86 confers power on the High Court to dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Sections 81 and 82 or Section 117. Section 87 deals with the procedure to be followed in the trial of the election petition and it lays down that subject to the provisions of the Act and of any les made thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the High Court as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure applicable to the trial of suits under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Since provisions of Civil Procedure Code apply to the trial of an election petition, Order 6, Rule 16 and Order 6, Rule 17 are applicable to the proceedings relating to the trial of an election petition subject to the provisions of the Act. On a combined reading of Sections 81, 83, 86 and 87 of the Act, it is apparent that those paras of a petition which do not disclose any cause of action, are liable to be struck off under Order 6, Rule 16, as the Court is empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike out or delete pleading which is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the petition or suit. It is the duty of the court to examine the plaint and it need not wait till the defendant files written statement and points out the defects.

If the court on examination of the plaint or the election petition finds that it does not disclose any cause of action it would be

13 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

justified in striking out the pleadings. Order 6, Rule 16 itself empowers the Court to strike out pleadings at any stage of the proceedings which may even be before the filing of the written statement by the respondent or commencement of the trial. If the Court is satisfied that the election petition does not make out any cause of action and that the trial would prejudice, embarrass and delay the proceedings, the court need not wait for the filing of the written statement instead it can proceed to hear the preliminary objections and strike out the pleadings. If after striking out the pleadings the court finds that no triable issues remain to be considered, it has power to reject the election petition under. Order VI, Rule 11.

11. In Bhagwati Prasad Dixit 'Ghorawala' v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 (4) SCC 78 this Court again reiterated that in an election pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous and if the election petition does not disclose a cause of action it should be rejected in limine. These authorities have settled the legal position that an election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine at the initial stage if it does not disclose any cause of action. Cause of action in questioning the validity of election must relate to the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Act. If the allegations contained in the petition do not set out grounds of challenge as contemplated by Section 100 of the Act and if the allegations do not conform to the requirement of Sections 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 7 Rule 11. A pleading if vague and general is embarrassing. If the allegation contained in the election petition even assuming to be true and correct do not make out any case of corrupt practice or any ground under Section 100 of the Act, the pleading would be unnecessary, frivolous and vexatious. It is always open to strike out the same. If after striking out defective pleadings the Court finds that no cause of action

14 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

remains to be tried it would be duty bound to reject the petition under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code If a preliminary objection is raised before the commencement of the trial, the court is duty bound to consider the same it need not postpone the consideration for subsequent stage of the trial."

In the light of the afore discussion and the law settled by the

Supreme Court the decks are now clear to scrutinize the pleadings in the

case in hand to find out as to whether the same disclose any cause of action.

However, before adverting to the allegations of corrupt practices raised in

the petition there is another issue which requires this Court's attention. The

main thrust of the allegations by the petitioner are that the respondent has

not accurately accounted for the expenses incurred by him during the course

of his election campaign and therefore has committed corrupt practices in

terms of Section 77 read with Section 123(b) of the Act. In support of such

allegations of his the petitioner has filed an affidavit in which he has sworn

that his allegations are based to the best of his knowledge. In this regard

paragraph 3(b) of the petition may be referred to. The same reads as under:-

"That on 30.10.2019, the petitioner sought certified copies of expenditure, vouchers, receipts etc. incurred by returned candidate Sh. Surinder Panwar in connection with the election incurred or authorised by him or his election agent between the date on which he has been nominated and date of declaration of result. No reply has been received from returning officer cum SDO (Civil) 31 Sonipat AC. That as prescribed by the each candidate needs to maintain a register of day to day accurate election expenditure register under Section 77 of Representation of People Act, 1951, election expenses which needs to be verified/scrutinised by the expenditure observer on Election Duty on regular basis. That

15 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

apart from the above, each candidate is bound by various terms which need to be complied with utmost respect and any breach of these duties shall amount to wrongful election practice, amounting to being corrupt practice within the definition as prescribed under Section 77, 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. "Date wise election expenditure from notification of Assembly General election on 21.10.2019 in connection between the date of the publication of the notification calling the election and the date of declaration of result thereof' issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 03.10.1974 in case titled as KanwarLal Gupta versus Amar Nath Chawla and others." (emphasis supplied)

As per the above, after the respondent had been declared

elected and before filing of the election petition, the petitioner had sought

from the Returning Officer certified copies of the expenditure vouchers,

declarations etc. submitted by the respondent to the Returning Officer with

regard to the expenses incurred by him during the course of his election

campaign but no such information was supplied to him by the Returning

Officer.

In the absence of the above information having not been

supplied to the petitioner it is a cause of wonder as to how the petitioner

gathered knowledge of the alleged wrongful declarations made by the

respondent with regard to his election expenses. The same is shrouded by

mystery and therefore questionable especially, when a reading of the entire

election petition does not divulge any other source from which the

petitioner derived "knowledge" with regard to the alleged incorrect

declarations made by the respondent with regard to his election expenses.

Therefore, the petitioner's "knowledge" on the basis whereof he has made

16 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

allegations of corrupt practices by the respondent of having falsely declared

his election expenses is not credible. This fact was duly brought to the

notice of the petitioner by this Court but in spite of the same no attempt was

made by the petitioner to place on record the source of his "knowledge"

with regard to the allegations made by him in his petition. No amendment

of the main petition was also sought. On these grounds alone, the election

petition deserves rejection.

Irrespective of the above, the allegations of corrupt practices

are found contained in paragraph 3 and its various sub-paragraphs. In

paragraph 3(a) and 3(b) the petitioner avers that in case a candidate does not

maintain or get verified or disclose expenses incurred by him in his election

such inaction on his part would be violative of Section 77 of the Act and

would also be a corrupt practice in terms of Section 123(6) of the Act.

In para 3(c) the petitioner avers that the respondent abused the

'entire machinery' and adopted 'all illegal and unlawful' means to win the

election. However, no details of which machinery and what means were

allegedly used by the respondent have been given. Thus, these allegations

are absolutely vague, non-specific and general.

In para 3(d) the petitioner avers that the respondent has not

declared in his affidavit anything apart from his assets. No particulars of

what has been concealed by the respondent is forthcoming.

In para 3(e) allegations of unfair use of the media by the

respondent are also found to be non-specific and general as it has no where

been pleaded as to which media house in what manner allegedly helped the

respondent to win his election.

17 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

Para 3(f) simply narrates a fact.

Paras 3(g) and 3(h) are found to contain vague averments that

at the time of filing of his nomination the respondent was part of a large

procession which included "around" 200 cars and "around" 5000 persons

and that the respondent did not disclose the exact expenditure incurred by

him. In all the remaining paragraphs of the election petition also allegations

have been made with regard to the respondent having not disclosed actual

expenses incurred by him while addressing different rallies. All the

averments are not only found to be general in nature but also do not contain

any specific averment that the respondent incurred or authorized

expenditure which was beyond the prescribed limit. No fact showing any

authorization of the alleged expenditure by the respondent or his election

agent has also been pleaded. Details with regard to the expenses declared by

the respondent are missing. What were the actual expenses incurred at the

pleaded events have not been given. The details of the rallies referred to in

the pleadings are also absent and therefore the allegations qua the alleged

corrupt practice in such rallies/ jansabhas end up in a blur. Thus, in the

averments regarding the alleged corrupt practices full particulars are

missing. The petitioner also does not disclose his source of information

with regard to the non disclosure of the actual expenditure allegedly

incurred by the respondent as it is his own case in paragraph 3(b) of the

election petition that before filing of the election petition the petitioner had

sought details of the expenditure etc. incurred by the respondent from the

Returning Officer but the same were not supplied.

Keeping in view the above discussion, this Court is of the view

18 of 19

Election Petition No.12 of 2019

that the election petition is an abuse of the process of the Court. In such

circumstances the respondent's application filed by him under Order VII

Rule 11 of the Code is allowed and resultantly, the main petition is rejected.

09.01.2023                                          (Deepak Sibal)
gk                                                    Judge

             Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:         Yes/No




                                    19 of 19