2009 Supreme(SC) 1814

2009(8) Supreme 129
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Laxmi Kant Bajpai — Appellant
versus
Hazi Yaqoob & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4201 of 2008
Decided on : 08-12-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
1. An election petition has to disclose all the material facts on which the election petitioner relies to establish the existence of a cause of action.
2. Material facts essentially refer to all the relevant facts which an appellant relies upon during the course of the trial . In the absence of material facts and insufficient cause of action, the election petition is liable to be dismissed.

Headnote:Representation of People Act, 1951 – Section 100 (1) (d) (iii) and (iv) – Election Petition – Election of Respondent the elected candidate in the elections held from 381 Meerut Assembly Constituency to the U.P. Legislative Assembly was called in question before High Court by the defeated candidate by filing Election Petition – Said Petition was rejected by High Court – High Court after a detailed discussion of pleadings of the parties came to the conclusion that election petition did not disclose any cause of action – The material fact to be included in the election petition should have been in relation to the non-inclusion of the 21 localities in Meerut municipality constituency- High Court hence dismissed the election petition for non-disclosure of cause of action – Appeal – Averments of the appellants in the election petition did not disclose any definite cause of action – The appellant pleads that the names of 21 localities had been wrongfully included in the electoral roll of relevant constituency – But there had been no order by the Election Commission for the alteration of the electoral rolls of the constituency-Furthermore the Election Commission did not have the power to amend electoral roll as there had been no fresh delimitation carried out by Delimitation Act – The electoral rolls had been prepared keeping in view the 381 Meerut constituency, which consisted of the Meerut municipality ward – This was as per the notification of the Delimitation Commission – Delimitation had to be carried out by Delimitation Commission and in furtherance of the delimitation carried out by Commission, Election Commission shall proceed to prepare electoral rolls for the constituency- Therefore, there had been no default on the part of any of the authorities, so as to render any votes void – There had been no violation of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules framed thereunder – The appellant primarily relied on the communication issued by the Election Commission of India dated 24.3.2007 – But the same could not be construed as any direction on the part of Commission- The averments also did not disclose any material facts – The main concern of the appellant was the addition of the 21 colonies into the Meerut constituency and not in relation to addition or deletion of names in the electoral roll – But yet there had been no specific pleading in this regard in the election petition – The pleading should have been with respect to the said inclusion of the 21 colonies into the Meerut municipality constituency which was later incorporated into the 381 Meerut Municipality constituency – In the absence of such pleadings, it could safely be said that the election petition not disclosed any material facts and the High Court was right in summarily dismissing election petition. (Paras 35 to 39)

        Representation of People Act, 1951 – Section 100 (1) (d) (iii) and (iv) – Election Petition – Material Facts – An election petition has to disclose all the material facts on which the election petitioner relies to establish the existence of a cause of action – Material facts essentially refer to all the relevant facts which an appellant relies upon during the course of the trial – In the absence of material facts and insufficient cause of action, the election petition is liable to be dismissed – It is a settled legal position that an election petition must clearly and unambiguously set out all the material facts which the appellant is to rely upon during the trial, and it must reveal a clear and complete picture of the circumstances and should disclose a definite cause of action – In the absence of the above, an election petition can be summarily dismissed. (Para 28, 35)

       Facts of the Case :

        Election of Respondent the elected candidate in the elections held from 381 Meerut Assembly Constituency to the U.P. Legislative Assembly was called in question before High Court by the defeated candidate by filing Election Petition . Said Petition was rejected by High Court .High Court after a detailed discussion of pleadings of the parties came to the conclusion that election petition did not disclose any cause of action. The material fact to be included in the election petition should have been in relation to the non-inclusion of the 21 localities in Meerut municipality constituency. High Court hence dismissed the election petition for non – disclosure of cause of action.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Averments of the appellants in the election petition did not disclose any definite cause of action. The appellant pleads that the names of 21 localities had been wrongfully included in the electoral roll of relevant constituency. But there had been no order by the Election Commission for the alteration of the electoral rolls of the constituency. Furthermore the Election Commission did not have the power to amend electoral roll as there had been no fresh delimitation carried out by Delimitation Act. The electoral rolls had been prepared keeping in view the 381 Meerut constituency, which consisted of the Meerut municipality ward. This was as per the notification of the Delimitation Commission. Delimitation had to be carried out by Delimitation Commission and in furtherance of the delimitation carried out by Commission, Election Commission shall proceed to prepare electoral rolls for the constituency. Therefore, there had been no default on the part of any of the authorities, so as to render any votes void. There had been no violation of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules framed thereunder. The appellant primarily relied on the communication issued by the Election Commission of India dated 24.3.2007. But the same could not be construed as any direction on the part of Commission. The averments also did not disclose any material facts.The main concern of the appellant was the addition of the 21 colonies into the Meerut constituency and not in relation to addition or deletion of names in the electoral roll. But yet there had been no specific pleading in this regard in the election petition. The pleading should have been with respect to the said inclusion of the 21 colonies into the Meerut municipality constituency which was later incorporated into the 381 Meerut Municipality constituency. In the absence of such pleadings, it could safely be said that the election petition not disclosed any material facts and, that , High Court was right in summarily dismissing election petition.