JUDGMENT

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-The appellant and the respondents contested the Lok Sabha Election held in March, 1995 from the 190 Lakhisarai Constituency in the State of Bihar. Respondent No. 1 was declared as the returned candidate. The appellant challenged the election of respondent No. 1 before the Patna High Court by filing an election petition, in this petition he challenged the election under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging that the result of the election had been materially affected by the improper reception of votes and by mixing the votes of the appellant with the votes of other contesting candidates.

2. Respondent No. 1 filed a petition before the High Court under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Order 6 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code raising a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the election petition. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 13.1.1997 rejected the election petition of the appellant under Section 83(1)(a) of The Representation of People Act read with Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground that the petition did not disclose a complete cause of action and was, therefore, not maintainable.

3. The relevant provisions of Section 83(1) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 are as follows :

"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 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) .........."

4. The election petition of the appellant does not allege any corrupt practice. Therefore, in the present case, the question of application of Section 83(1)(b) does not arise. The only relevant provision, therefore, is Section 83(1)(a) which requires the petition to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. The language of Section 83(1)(a) is similar to the language of Order VI Rule 2(1) which provides that "Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved". By contrast under Section 83(1)(b) not only is it necessary to set out full (as opposed to concise) particulars, but also a full statement of the names of parties who have allegedly committed a corrupt practice, and the date and place of its commission.

5. We have, therefore, to see whether the election petition contains a concise statement of material facts i.e., cause of action. The election petition of the appellant, from paragraph 10 onwards deals with the counting of ballot papers and why according to the appellant, such counting was unfair, improper or not in accordance with law. He has alleged that the Returning Officer did not comply with Rule 56 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and the instructions contained in the Hand-Book for Returning Officers. He has given particulars of some of the irregularities. In paragraph 15, for example, he has alleged that on counting table Nos. 11 and 12, ballot papers marked on "Hand" symbol were mixed with those of other party candidates; and in the process ballot papers which were marked on "Hand" were not being counted in favour of the appellant. The appellant has stated that his counting agents specifically stated to him when he visited the counting hall that hundreds of such ballot papers had already been mixed with the ballot papers in favour of an independent candidate, respondent No. 9. He has alleged that 3,530 votes which should have been counted in his favour were wrongly counted in favour of respondent No. 9 He has