An election petition cannot be dismissed in limine under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, unless the petitioner's allegations of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act are supported by evidence and do not require a trial to be established.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by special leave calls in question an order made in election Petition No. 6 of 1995 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dated 12-3-1996, whereby three applications filed by the appellant seeking dismissal of the election petition, in limine, under Section 86 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter called "the Act") were rejected.

( 2 ) THE election in question relates to 115 Mangrulpir Legislative assembly Constituency. The appellant is the returned candidate. After the result of the election was announced and the appellant declared elected, an election petition was filed by Respondent 1 challenging the election of the appellant on various grounds. The returned candidate, thereupon, filed three applications seeking dismissal of the election petition in limine.

( 3 ) THE first application was filed by the appellant on 29-9-1995 and it sought dismissal of the election petition under Section 86 (1) of the Act for non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 81, 82 and 83 of the Act. The second application was filed by him on 30-11-1995 again seeking dismissal of the election petition under Section 86 (1) of the Act for non- compliance with the requirements of Section 82 (a) of the Act. The third application was filed by him on 14-12-1995 once again seeking dismissal of the election petition under Section 86 (1) of the Act for non-compliance with the requirements of Section 82 (b) of the Act. Written statement, however, was not filed to the election petition. All the three applications were rejected and the election petition was set down for trial.

( 4 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.

( 5 ) INSOFAR as the application alleging non-compliance with Section 82 (b) is concerned, the only allegation made in the application was to the effect that Dr Sanjeev Vitthalrao Wardekar had not been impleaded as a party respondent though he was a candidate against whom allegations of corrupt practice were allegedly made. It appears that while the application was pending, an application was filed by Dr Sanjeev Vitthalrao Wardekar under order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 86 (4) of the Act seeking impleadment in the election petition. That application was filed within the prescribed time and was allowed by the learned Single Judge. In view of the fact that the Court had allowed the application of Dr Sanjeev vitthalrao Wardekar and impleaded him as a party respondent in the election petition, the objection regarding alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Section 82 (6) of the Act did not survive for consideration. The High court, therefore, rightly rejected the application filed by the appellant herein.

( 6 ) INSOFAR as the application filed on 30-11-1995 is concerned, the learned Single Judge dealt with it exhaustively and opined:"16. Respondent 7, a successful candidate made a loud claim that maroti Narayan Pardhi an independent candidate contested the election and secured 170 votes in the election, not being a party to the petition, it being non-compliance of Section 82 (a) of the Act, needs summary dismissal of the petition. This incident is not as simple as it is depicted by Shri Madholkar, the learned counsel for Respondent 7. The contesting candidate viz. Shri maroti Narayan Pardhi accepted the notice on 6-9- 1995, specifying that the notice is wrongly sent. It is apparent that marotis fathers name is narayan. At S. No. (Respondent 19), instead of maroti Narayan Pardhi the name has been typed as narayan maroti Pardhi. Apparently, it appears to be a typing error as stated on behalf of the petitioner. The contesting candidate is before the Court and, therefore, whether it is a typing error or not, requires evidence to be led. As such, I do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel of Respondent 7 too. "the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge appeals to us. No fault can be found with the rejec